Appeal 2007-0828
Application 10/456,455
New Ground of Rejection
In the Examiner’s non-final rejection mailed November 16, 2004, the
Examiner objected to claims 19 through 21 as containing allowable subject
matter. We consider the Examiner’s apparent interpretation of the claims to
be unduly narrow, and enter a new ground of rejection against claims 19
through 21.
Claims 19-21 are hereby rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lin ′999 and Lin ′203. The claims depend from
independent claim 1. We adopt the Examiner’s findings as set out in the
Answer as they relate to base claim 1.
Claim 19 recites that the perimeter wall of claim 1 is positioned to
create a flow space between itself and at least a portion of an edge of a
semiconductor die when the semiconductor die is positioned in the recess,
such that an underfill encapsulant may be flowed between the upper surface
(that the perimeter wall substantially encircles) and the semiconductor die
therethrough. The perimeter wall or dam 66 of Lin ′999 (col. 6, l. 66 –
col. 7, l. 4; Fig. 3) is positioned as recited in the claim. The positioning of
the perimeter wall in Lin ′999 does not, to any extent, prevent an underfill
encapsulant being flowed between the upper surface and the semiconductor
die therethrough.
Lin ′999 describes a die attach material 36 to mount the die to package
substrate 50 (col. 5, ll. 4-8), with wire bonds 60, 62 (Fig. 3) for electrical
connections to the chip (col. 6, ll. 32-58). Lin ′999 teaches that a liquid
encapsulant 40 may be used to avoid touching of the wire bonds during
encapsulation, and that a dam 66 may be included to constrain the flow of
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013