Appeal 2007-1104
Application 09/962,697
conductive bumps. It follows that the Examiner did not err in rejecting
representative claim 13 as being anticipated by Fukutomi.
Appellants did not offer separate arguments against the rejection of
claims 14 and 15. Therefore, they fall together with representative claim 13.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004.)
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) REJECTION
Now, we turn to the rejection of claims 13 and 14 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Fukutomi and Jung. As discussed
above, we have found that Fukutomi teaches 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
conductive bumps. Further, we have found that Jung teaches the use of
T-shaped connection pads to allow the chip to establish contacts with
external devices, as well as to enhance the locking of the pads in the chip.
(Findings of fact 11 and 12). We agree with the Examiner that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have readily recognized that Jung’s
connection pads would have allowed Fukutomi’s encapsulated chip to
enhance the locking of elevations in the encapsulated chip. Therefore, it is
our view that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to
combine the teachings of Fukutomi and Jung to yield the invention as recited
in claims 13 and 14. It follows that the Examiner did not err in rejecting
claims 13 and 14 as being unpatentable over Fukutomi and Jung.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013