Appeal 2007-1104
Application 09/962,697
fact 5 and 9.) Similarly, we have found that figure 2B4 of Fukutomi teaches
the conductive elevations as being commonly formed and separated from the
base substrate to the same extent that figure 10 of Appellants’ drawings
disclose that limitation. (Findings of fact 5 and 8.) We have also found that
Appellants’ drawings (particularly, figures 7 and 9 through 12) and
Specification suffer of these same deficiencies raised in Appellants’
contentions above.5 As previously noted, we find nowhere in Appellants’
original Specification any discussion pertaining to the height of the
electrically conductive bumps or elevations.6 Therefore, Appellants cannot
rely on these same premises to persuasively rebut the Examiner’s prima
facie case of anticipation. In light of these findings, it is our reasoned
opinion that Fukutomi’s teachings amount to electrically conductive
elevations being commonly formed and separated from the base substrate
where the conductive elevations have a height greater than the height of the
4 At page 8 of the Brief, Appellants state:
“Figs. 2a-2f of Fukutomi do not disclose a height of the gold bump (8).
Accordingly (sic) Fukutomi does not provide teaching for the relationship of
the height of the gold bumps (8) with respect to the wiring (2). Therefore, in
Fukutomi, a conclusion that height of the wirings is greater than the height
of the gold bumps cannot be made… The other figures of Fukutomi
showing wire-bonding connections are silent about the selection of the
dimensions for the gold bumps and offer no indication of how the gold
bumps are dimensioned… The descriptions of figs. 2a-2f at column 9, lines
28-49, provides no indication for the height relationship between the gold
bumps (8) and the wiring (2).”
Further, at page 2 of the Reply Brief, Appellants argue that figures 2A-2F
of Fukutomi are not true to scale.
5 Id.
6 See supra note 2.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013