Appeal 2007-1363
Application 10/637,419
Accordingly, the issues presented in the record of this appeal are as
follows: (1) does Raiser disclose a height of at least one die attach fillet that
is in the range of approximately 0% to approximately 75% of said at least
one die side thickness at a location of at least 25% inboard as required by
claim 1 on appeal (or within the range of 33% to 75% as required by claim
21 on appeal)? ; and (2) is the underfill material 26 disclosed by Raiser “die
attach material” within the scope of claim 1 on appeal?
We determine that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
anticipation in view of the disclosure of Raiser, which prima facie case has
not been adequately rebutted by Appellants’ arguments. Therefore, we
AFFIRM the rejection based on § 102(e) over Raiser for the reasons stated
in the Answer, as well as those reasons set forth below. We also determine
that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness in view
of Raiser. Since Appellants present the same arguments for the § 103(a)
rejection over Raiser as presented for the § 102(e) rejection (Br. 17), we
AFFIRM this rejection for the same reasons as discussed below and in the
Answer.
OPINION
A. The Rejection under § 102(e)
We determine the following factual findings from the record in this
appeal:
(1) Raiser discloses a semiconductor chip package base or substrate
14 having a die attachment area between the substrate and the
integrated circuit 12 (silicon die) which has at least one side and at
least one edge where an amount of die attach material (underfill)
38/26 is provided to result in at least one portion of the die attach
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013