Appeal No. 2006-2051
Application No. 10/396,955
work.”) Consequently, the examiner must determine whether the
subject matter identified as
“prior art” is applicant’s own work, or the work of another.
In the absence of another credible explanation, examiners should
treat such subject matter as the work of another. Where the
specification identifies work done by another as “prior art,” the
subject matter so identified is treated as admitted prior art. In
re Nomiya, 509 F.2d 566, 571, 184 USPQ 607, 611 (CCPA 1975)
(holding applicant’s labeling of two figures in the application
drawings as “prior art” to be an admission that what was pictured
was prior art relative to applicant’s improvement).
We note in the present case that the Examiner’s statement of
the rejection incorrectly sets out APA as a base reference for
the rejection. Particularly, figure 1 and page 5, line 27 through
page 6, line 8 do not qualify as admitted prior art. Figure 1
and cited portion of the Appellants’ specification are directed
to the estimated interfacial die stress at the interface between
the underfill and a low-k silicon dielectric and the solder bump
strain for four underfill material in a 45 mm ball grid array
package. There is no indication in Appellants’ specification that
such teachings are directed to the previous work of another or
otherwise drawn from the prior art.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007