Appeal 2007-0828
Application 10/456,455
OPINION
The Standing Rejection
Claim 1 is the sole independent claim in this application. The
Examiner offers the teachings of Lin ′999 and Lin ′203 to show prima facie
unpatentability of the claim. The § 103 rejection contends (Answer 3-4) that
Lin ′999 shows all that is required by instant claim 1, except for the
perimeter wall “substantially encircling” an upper surface of the interposer
to form a recess. The rejection turns to Lin ′203 for the perimeter wall
teaching deemed to be missing from Lin ′999.
At the outset, we note that Lin ′203 can be considered merely
cumulative in its teachings with respect to the rejection of claim 1. Lin ′999
describes a semiconductor device 41 (Fig. 3) comprising a semiconductor
die 42 mounted to a package substrate 50. A first recess 56 is formed to
create first bonding tier 52, while a second recess 58 is formed to create a
second bonding tier 54. Semiconductor die 42 is mounted within recess 56
and is attached to the substrate by die attach material 36. Lin ′999, col. 5, l.
61 – col. 6, l. 31. The reference depicts, in Figure 3, dam (perimeter wall)
66 as being on only one-half of the device; i.e., the left half as shown in the
drawing. The perimeter wall is not shown as “substantially encircling” the
upper surface of the interposer, however, for the simple reason that the wall
for constraining the flow of liquid encapsulant upon dispensing or reflow is
optional. Lin ′999, col. 6, l. 59 – col. 7, l. 4. Thus, while Lin ′999 describes
an embodiment in which there is no perimeter wall in place, the reference
describes another embodiment where a perimeter wall “substantially
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013