Appeal 2007-0707
Application 10/799,468
Examiner that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art
to employ an apparatus of the type disclosed by VanNortwick for applying
the adhesive film of Sakumoto to an IC chip. As recognized by the
Examiner, VanNortwick does not teach removing a coverlay from the
adhesive strip before it is applied to the chip. However, we agree with the
Examiner that Saito evidences the obviousness of employing drive and pinch
rollers to remove a release liner from an adhesive strip to a semiconductor
wafer. Accordingly, we find that it would have been a matter of obviousness
for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of VanNortwick
to incorporate means for removing a release liner when a tape of the type
disclosed by Sakumoto is used.
Appellant emphasizes that “Sakumoto does not provide any
information as to an apparatus for performing these steps or how an
apparatus might be configured to perform these steps” (Br. 7, ¶1). However,
Sakumoto is cited to show that it was known in the art to use an adhesive
tape with a coverlay that is peeled off before the tape is cut to a definite
length and then brought into contact with the lead frame of a semiconductor
wafer. While Sakumoto does not disclose any details regarding the
apparatus used to perform the procedure, leaving it to one of ordinary skill in
the art to employ conventional apparatus, VanNortwick and Saito establish
that apparatus in accordance with the appealed claims were known in the art
at the time of filing the present application. While Appellant argues that
Saito cuts the protective film after applying it to the surface of the wafer,
VanNortwick demonstrates that it was known in the art to cut the film before
application to the wafer. Similarly, while Appellant maintains that Saito
“fails to teach or suggest anything concerning an adhesive-film-attachment
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013