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