Ex Parte Cobbley et al - Page 11

                Appeal 2007-1772                                                                             
                Application 10/672,750                                                                       
                portion of the disclosure of Pai referred to by the Examiner (Answer 21)                     
                does not address the characteristics of the adhesive used by Pai for coupling                
                the substrate to a semi-conductor die as correctly argued by Appellants                      
                (Reply Br. 6-7).  In short, the Examiner’s rationale for the rejection does not              
                “identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the                
                art to combine the elements” in the manner claimed.  KSR Int’l v. Teleflex,                  
                Inc., 127 S. Ct. at 1731, 82 USPQ2d at 1389).                                                
                      On this record, we reverse the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claims                 
                35 and 37-39 over the combined teachings of Pai and Huang.                                   
                                    Rejection over Pai in view of Hakey                                      
                Claim 68                                                                                     
                      Claim 68 requires an integrated circuit comprising a die stack wherein                 
                the substrate is coupled to one of the semi-conductor die using an adhesive                  
                that is curable at a lower temperature than the curing temperature of an                     
                adhesive used in coupling the semiconductor die together.                                    
                      Here, the Examiner makes the same reversible error in not giving the                   
                adhesive properties of the claimed product patentable weight and by                          
                referring to a portion of Pai that is directed to an adhesive other than the                 
                substrate coupling adhesive, as we discussed above with respect to the                       
                Examiner’s rejection of claims 35 and 37-39 (see Answer 11 and 22).  The                     
                Examiner has not explained how the teachings of Hakey would remedy this                      
                deficiency in the stated rejection.  It follows that we shall reverse the                    
                Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claim 68 over Pai in view of Hakey.                         
                Claims 69 and 70                                                                             
                      Appealed claims 69 and 70 do not require the adhesive properties                       
                discussed above with respect to claim 68.  Rather, claims 69 and 70 require                  

                                                     11                                                      

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013