Appeal 2007-1363
Application 10/637,419
In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
A disclosure in the prior art of any value within the claimed range
constitutes anticipation of that claimed range. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d
257, 267, 191 USPQ 90, 100 (CCPA 1976).
Applying the preceding legal principles to the factual findings in the
record of this appeal, we determine that the Examiner has established a
prima facie case of anticipation which has not been adequately rebutted by
Appellants’ arguments. First, we construe the claimed term “die attach
material” (see claim 1 on appeal). We note that there is no clear definition
of this term in Appellants’ Specification, nor have Appellants pointed to any
definition or art-recognized meaning for this term (see the Brief in its
entirety). However, from the context of Appellants’ Specification and
Figures, we construe the term “die attach material” by its broadest
reasonable meaning to include any material which fills at least a portion of
the space between the die and the chip base or substrate and functions to
attach or hold the die and chip base together (Specification, ¶ [0002], ¶
[0003], ¶ [0044], and Figures 1-15).
In view of our claim construction above, we determine that the
underfill 26 and fillet 38 disclosed by Raiser clearly constitute “die attach
material” within the meaning of this claimed term. We determine that
Raiser teaches that underfill material 26 fills at least a portion of the space
between the integrated circuit 12 (die) and the substrate 14 (chip base) and
functions to hold these two components together (Raiser, col. 2, ll. 36-38,
51-54; col. 3, ll. 48-51; and the Answer 9).
As shown by factual findings (1) through (3) listed above, we
determine that Raiser describes an example which falls within the scope of
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013