Appeal 2007-0734
Application 09/908,455
Appellants rely on the same arguments presented in the discussion of
the rejection under §102 over Donges (Br. 9). Appellants further contend
that the Examiner's position that it would have been obvious to vary the
viscosity of the liquid (underfill) of Donges is tenuous at best (Br. 9).
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive for the reasons set forth
above and in the Examiner's Answer (Answer 18-19). Donges discloses the
viscosity of the underfilled material should be sufficient to hold the chip in
place until the heating step is complete. (See col. 5, ll. 26-39). Appellants
have not argued that the person of ordinary skill in the art would not have
sufficient basis to modify the viscosity of the underfilled material of Donges
based upon the disclosures of the reference.
II. The Rejections over Nebashi
The Examiner finds that Nebashi describes a method for forming a
pattern on a substrate that comprises disposing a pattern of liquid on a
substrate through the use of a template (Answer 7-8).
Appellants contend that Nebashi fails to teach or suggest the method
by which spaced-apart droplets are positioned on a substrate so as to expel
gas and/or minimize the trapping of the same (Br. 9).
The issue before us is whether Applicants have shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting the claims 159-162, 174, 178, and 179 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e). The issue turns on whether the Examiner has
established a reasonable belief that the method described by Nebashi
produces a continuous patterned layer of material on a substrate formed by
merging together spaced apart droplets through the use of a template, and
whether the Appellants have adequately rebutted the Examiner’s position by
showing that the patterned layer of material on a substrate produced by the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013