Appeal 2007-1104
Application 09/962,697
The Examiner rejected the claims on appeal as follows:
A. Claims 13 through 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being
anticipated by Fukutomi.
B. Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Fukutomi and Jung.
First, Appellants contend1 that Fukutomi does not anticipate claims 13
through 15. Particularly, Appellants contend that Fukutomi does not teach
electrically conductive elevations having a height greater than the height of
electrically conductive bumps. (Br. 8; Reply Br. 2.) The Examiner, in
contrast, contends that as depicted in Figures 2A through 2F, Fukutomi
teaches the limitations of representative claim 13. (Answer 5 and 9.) The
Examiner therefore concludes that Fukutomi anticipates claims 13 through
15. (Id.)
Second, Appellants contend that the combination of Fukutomi and
Jung does not render claims 13 and 14 unpatentable. (Br. 11.) Particularly,
Appellants contend that the combination of Fukutomi and Jung does not
teach or suggest a plurality of conductive elevations commonly formed and
separated from a base substrate, the electrically conductive elevations
connected to the electrically conductive bumps, and the electrically
conductive elevations having a height greater than the height of the
electrically conductive bumps, as recited in claim 13. (Br. 13.) Similarly,
Appellants contend that the cited combination does not teach or suggest the
1 This decision considers only those arguments that Appellants submitted in
the Appeal and Reply Briefs. Arguments that Appellant could have made
but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to have been waived. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1) (vii)(eff. Sept. 13, 2004). See also In re Watts, 354
F.3d 1362, 1368, 69 USPQ2d 1453, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013