Appeal 2007-1363
Application 10/637,419
relationship between the amount of underfill material that is applied between
integrated circuit 12 and substrate 14 and the height of fillet 38 (id.).
Appellants contend that Raiser discloses that the strain and
corresponding stress for the outermost solder bumps is not reduced by
increasing the percentage of underfill beyond approximately 25% (Br. 12).
Appellants also contend that the underfill material 26 is used by Raiser to
provide support to solder bumps 16, thus the underfill material does not
“attach” circuit 12 to substrate 14 and is not “die attach material” as
specified in claim 1 on appeal (id.).1
The Examiner contends that Raiser clearly discloses that the fillet 38
of the die attach material 38/26 formed along the perimeter of integrated
circuit 12 extends from the substrate 14 to a point approximately one-half
(or 50%) of the thickness (i.e., height) of integrated circuit 12 (Answer 3
and 6).
The Examiner contends that the underfill material 26 disclosed by
Raiser is a “die attach material” within the scope of the claims since this
liquid epoxy material contacts both the die 12 and the substrate 14 (Answer
9). The Examiner also contends that the underfill material 26 disclosed by
Raiser is used to reduce the shear strain and corresponding shear stress in
solder bumps 16, thus correspondingly reducing the shear stress in die 12
(Answer 8).
1 Appellants only present specific, substantive arguments with respect to
claim 1 on appeal (Br. 9-13). These arguments are merely repeated for
claims 21 and 23-31 (Br. 13-17). Thus, we limit our consideration for this
ground of rejection in the appeal to claims 1 and 21.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013