Appeal No. 2007-0068
Application No. 10/230,452
The rejections as presented by the Examiner are as follows:
1. Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 13-15, 18, 19, 21, and 22 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Wu.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Shim.
3. Claims 5, 6, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wu and Lee.
4. Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Wu and Kondo.
Rather than reiterate the opposing arguments, we refer to the Briefs
and the Answer for the respective positions of Appellant and the
Examiner.
OPINION
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claims over Wu
The focus of Appellant’s arguments is that Wu does not describe or
show the second semiconductor device resting upon, or its back contacting
wires 32 (Br. 9-10). The Examiner argues that Wu shows the semiconductor
device 34, which rest on portions of overflow glue 50 positioned on the
upper surface of the first device, in contact with discrete elements 32
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013