Appeal No. 2007-0068
Application No. 10/230,452
In view of our analysis and the discussion made above with respect to
the teachings of the reference, we find that Shim teaches all the recited
elements and therefore, anticipates the rejected claims. Accordingly, the
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claims 1, 7, 8, 12, 13, 17, and 20 as
anticipated by Shim is sustained.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims over Wu and Lee
Appellant argues that Wu and Lee lack proper motivation for
combining (Br. 13) and repeats the same arguments made above with respect
to anticipation of claim 1 (Br. 14). We again agree with the Examiner
(Answer 12) that Lee provides proper suggestion for isolating the discrete
conductive elements by wrapping them in an encapsulating adhesive which
isolates them from the semiconductor devices and the other conductive
elements (Lee, Abstract; col. 3, ll. 36-42). We also find ourselves persuaded
by the Examiner’s position (Answer 13) that coating the wires ensures
electrical isolation of the wires and actually helps the upper semiconductor
device to successfully be placed upon the bond wires. Therefore, we sustain
the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 5, 6, and 16 over Wu and Lee.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013