Appeal 2006-3358
Application 09/933,349
Hu describes embodiments for making “ultra-tall” indium bump
arrays. In a first embodiment, Hu describes obtaining a known integrated
circuit connector or interconnect pad having metal tubes 24 extending
through film 22 (Fig. 2). The interconnect pad is, inter alia, dipped in
molten indium for forming indium columns between components. Hu col. 5,
l. 51 - col. 6, l. 8.
The Examiner and Appellants agree in substance that Hu describes
indium columns having a height of about 115 μm before cold welding, based
on dimensions given at column 2, lines 21 through 25. The Examiner and
Appellants agree in substance that Hu does not provide express disclosure of
indium column height of less than about 115 μm in any of the described
embodiments of the invention.
We agree with Appellants that the § 102(b) rejection of the claims
fails to show that Hu describes, expressly or inherently, structure having
indium bumps having a height of between 15 to 100 μm as recited in
independent claims 1, 4, and 5. We therefore do not sustain the rejection of
the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for anticipation.
With respect to the § 103(a) rejection, the Examiner finds that Hu
would have suggested, to the skilled artisan, forming indium bumps taller
than those that Hu describes as prior art (i.e., taller than 10 μm), but less tall
than the described embodiment of 115 μm. Finding that Hu would have
suggested indium bumps at least having a height of between 15 to 100 μm,
the Examiner concludes that the subject matter as a whole of representative
claim 1 would have been prima facie obvious at the time of invention.
Appellants submit in the Brief (at 9) that a prima facie case of
obviousness exists when the ranges of a claimed combination overlap the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013