Appeal No. 2006-0497
Application No. 10/444,772
We refer to the Final Rejection (mailed Aug. 2, 2004) and the Examiner’s Answer
(mailed Apr. 8, 2005) for a statement of the examiner’s position and to the Brief (filed
Feb. 9, 2005) for appellant’s position with respect to the claims which stand rejected.
OPINION
Appellant argues that the rejection of instant claim 1, the sole independent claim
on appeal, is in error because separator pedestals (spacers) 50 of Earnworth are not
“operable to selectively force the die and substrate apart.” In the examiner’s view,
Earnworth clearly discloses that the plurality of spacers 50 operate to separate die 10
and substrate 20 apart, referring to column 10, lines 15 through 25. Further, Earnworth
teaches that the spacers prevent the die tilting or tipping in contact with the substrate,
as shown in prior art Figures 2 through 7 of the reference. Since spacers 50 are
inserted between the die and substrate to prevent the tipping, since the spacers
maintain a substantially uniform distance between the die and substrate, and since the
die asserts an amount of weight on the spacers, the spacers are deemed to be operable
to selectively force the die and substrate apart. (Answer at 6.)
Claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation during
prosecution, and the scope of a claim cannot be narrowed by reading disclosed
limitations into the claim. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023,
1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir.
1989); In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969). “An
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007