Appeal 2007-0707
Application 10/799,468
portion comprising a displace block” (Br. 7, last ¶), it is VanNortwick that
establishes the obviousness of the displaceable block.
Appellant also argues that the combination of Sakumoto, Saito, and
VanNortwick “fails to disclose that the cutting blade is situated relative to
the cutting block as recited in claim 21” (Br. 8, penultimate ¶). However, it
can be seen that element 82 of VanNortwick comprises a block situated
relative to cutting blades 110 (see Figure 6).
Appellant also contends that “[i]f VanNortwick is considered as the
starting reference, it is unclear why one skilled in the art would view
VanNortwick and be motivated to include a means for separating a coverlay
from an adhesive material” (Br. 9, ¶ 2). Manifestly, the requisite motivation
would arise from using the cutting and bonding apparatus of VanNortwick to
apply the adhesive films of Sakumoto and Saito which comprise a coverlay.
Regarding separately argued claims 22-23, which recite that the film
strip covers 70–90% of the wire-bond slot, we agree with the Examiner that
the claim recitation is a statement of intended use that the apparatus of
VanNortwick is fully capable of performing. Appellant has not
demonstrated otherwise. Manifestly, whether the film covers the wire-bond
slot is a function of the size of the slot and the size of the film selected.
Appellant also argues that the piston coupled to the block of claim 35
is not taught by the prior art. However, the Examiner properly points out
that VanNortwick specifically discloses a hydraulic cylinder to drive up and
down the cutters and block to cut and bond the film to the wafer
(VanNortwick, ¶ bridging cols. 6 and 7).
Appellant has not separately argued the separate § 103 rejection of
claims 32-34.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013