Appeal 2007-0828
Application 10/456,455
the liquid encapsulant during dispensing or reflow (col. 6, l. 59 - col. 7, l. 4).
Lin ′203 describes a dam structure 40 (Fig. 4) to constrain the flow of liquid
encapsulant 38 during dispense (col. 4, l. 58 – col. 5, l. 33). Die 32 is
attached to substrate 12 by an epoxy die attach material 34, with electrical
connections via wire bonds 36. Lin ′203, col. 4, ll. 32-38. Neither reference
depicts an underfill encapsulant in the drawings, such as shown in Figure 4
(reference numeral 102) of the instant disclosure. (See Specification ¶¶ 37-
38.)
Instant claim 19, however, does not require an underfill encapsulant.
The claim is directed to positioning of the perimeter wall.1 Claims 20 and
21 are not directed to an underfill encapsulant, but to a “flow space” created
by the positioning of the perimeter wall. The only thing in the claims to
“configure” the flow space is the positioning of the perimeter wall. As we
have indicated, the positioning of perimeter wall 66 in Lin ′999 does not
prevent the flow of any flowable substance, including that of an underfill
encapsulant.
We thus conclude that, on this record, the further limitations of claims
19 through 21 are met by Lin ′999. We therefore reject the claims under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over Lin ′999 and Lin ′203, pursuant to our authority under
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
1 Even if the claim were to be read as requiring an underfill encapsulant, an
underfill encapsulant is conventional for flip chip attachments (Specification
¶¶ 6, 7, 13, 14), which Lin ′203 expressly discloses (col. 4, ll. 38-40) in
combination with dams 40 and 44 (Fig. 4).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013