Appeal No. 2006-1341
Application No. 09/782,180
We now turn to the rejection of claims 5-8 and 18 over
Tamaki. As set forth by the examiner, the back surface of
Tamaki’s semiconductor wafer 4a is polished to a mirror finish
and is coated with a reinforcing resist material 33. For some
reason appellants’ arguments in the principal and reply briefs
focus upon adhesive 31 for reinforcing plate 21, but appellants
fail to explain why resin layer 33 of Tamaki, cited by the
examiner, fails to meet the claim 5 recitation of “applying resin
on said surface abrased.”
Appellants also maintain that “claim 5 distinguishes over
the reference [Tamaki] because claim 5 abrases to a mirror
finish” (page 10 of principal brief, penultimate paragraph).
However, appellants have not refuted the examiner’s reasonable
position that the step of “grinding to a mirror finish is
equivalent to abrasing” (page 11 of answer, first sentence).
Also, we agree with the examiner that one of ordinary skill in
the art would have understood that the functional device 3 of
Tamaki can be the claimed external connection electrode. In
addition, appellants have not rebutted the examiner’s finding
that “metal layer 5 is an electrical connection for the
semiconductor package” (page 11 of answer, third paragraph).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007