Appeal 2007-0707
Application 10/799,468
and a cutting blade situated relative to the block. The block is displaced a
first distance to cause the cutting blade to cut the adhesive-film strip and is
displaced a second distance to apply the cut strip to the support element.
Claims 21-31 and 35-36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Sakumoto in view of Saito, VanNortwick, and
Tsukagoshi. Claims 32-34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the stated combination of references further in view of
Wroblewski.
Appellant presents separate arguments only for claims 22-23, as a
group, and claim 35. Accordingly, claims 21, 24-34 and 36 stand or fall
together.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellant’s arguments for
patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner’s
reasoned analysis and application of the prior art, as well as his cogent and
thorough disposition of the arguments raised by Appellant. Accordingly, we
will adopt the Examiner’s reasoning as our own in sustaining the rejections
of record, and we add the following for emphasis only.
Sakumoto discloses the application of adhesive tape comprising a
coverlay for bonding to an IC chip wherein the coverlay is peeled off to
expose the adhesive portion of the tape, which is bonded to the chip with
heating. As appreciated by the Examiner, Sakumoto is directed to the
adhesive tape, per se, and is silent with respect to the type of apparatus used
to apply the tape to the IC chip. However, VanNortwick describes such an
apparatus for dispensing, cutting, and bonding an adhesive film to an IC chip
wherein a block is displaced a first distance to cut the tape and a second
distance to bond it to the chip. Accordingly, we fully concur with the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013