Appeal No. 2006-0497
Application No. 10/444,772
essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear,
correct, and unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be
removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process.” In re Zletz, F.2d 893
at 321, 13 USPQ2d at 1322.
While we commend the examiner to the extent the rejection is based on an
expansive reading of the claims, in this case we must agree with appellant that the
claims avoid the prior art that is applied.
Earnworth teaches that spacers 50 are sized and configured to spread any
compressive forces applied to semiconductor device 10 or substrate 20, to have
sufficient strength and rigidity to maintain a substantially uniform minimum distance
between the device and substrate during bonding, and to prevent tipping or tilting of
device 10 relative to substrate 20 (e.g., col. 10, ll. 1-31). The reference provides, in
column 11, examples of suitable materials that may constitute the spacers. The
rejection does not point out, and we do not find, where Earnworth discloses or suggests
that the spacers are operable to selectively force the die and substrate apart.
As a concrete example of the scope of the claims, we refer to Figures 1A and 1B
of the instant disclosure. Instant claim 1 reads on the flip chip assembly of Figure 1A.
The claim does not read on the flip chip assembly of Figure 1B, because -- subsequent
to the disclosed process -- separator pedestals 17 are not (i.e., no longer) operable to
selectively force the die and substrate apart. There is structural similarity between the
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007