Appeal 2006-3358
Application 09/933,349
example, 100 μm. Nor, for that matter, do we find anything in Hu that
would warn the artisan against forming indium columns anywhere between
15 and 100 μm. We find that Hu does not “teach away” from the invention.
Appellants also submit that Hu describes the height of the connectors
between chips as an important design feature, consistent with the instant
Specification. Appellants base the argument on Hu’s description at column
1, lines 58 through 68. (Br. 11.)
We find that Hu teaches, at the relevant section, minimizing problems
in the prior art by making indium bumps taller or longer. The text refers,
however, to the prior art fabrication process (in the same paragraph) that
resulted in indium bumps of 10 μm or less in height. Hu thus teaches, in a
fair reading of the section upon which Appellants rely, indium bumps having
more than 10 μm in height.
We agree with Appellants to the extent that Hu teaches that increasing
indium bump height results in a “more compliant” arrangement that is more
tolerant to thermal effects (expansion and contraction). However, we find
no evidence in this record in support of Appellants’ assertion (Br. 11-12;
Reply Br. 9) that one skilled in the art would have expected “Hu’s
connectors” to have different compliances and capacitances than those
within the claimed range (e.g., inclusive of 100 μm).
As if acknowledging the deficiencies in the Brief, Appellants submit a
new argument in the Reply Brief. According to Appellants, the Examiner
“failed to establish” that Hu enables a person of ordinary skill in the art to
make the claimed invention.
Appellants do not cite any authority for the belief that it is the
Examiner’s burden to establish that a reference is enabling. Appellants
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013