Appeal 2007-2342
Application 10/884,654
dispute in patentability between the Examiner and the Appellant turns on the
obviousness of this step. The Examiner relies on the following evidence of
unpatentability:
Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) as described on page 3 of the
Specification and shown in application Figs. 1-2
Wakashima US 2002/0020909 A1 Feb. 21, 2002
Claims 1-20, which are all the pending claims, stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over AAPA in view of Wakashima (Answer 3).
Because Appellant has not separately argued the patentability of any
individual claims, the claims stand or fall together. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii). We select claim 1 as representative to decide all issues in
this appeal. Claim 1 reads as follows:
1. A method of fabricating an electronics package, the
method comprising:
securing a die to one side of an interposer, the interposer
being a tape having a thickness less than 1 mm;
securing a pin carrier to an opposing side of the
interposer, the pin carrier including a cavity positioned against
the interposer opposite to the die;
securing an electronic component to the interposer such
that the electronic component is positioned within the cavity in
the pin carrier; and
substantially filling the cavity in the pin carrier with an
encapsulant while not overflowing the cavity with the
encapsulant such that the interposer is capable of withstanding a
mechanical load generated by thermal elements and is incapable
of withstanding the mechanical load without the encapsulant.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013