Appeal 2007-2342
Application 10/884,654
Fig. 2C shows the package prior to filling; Fig. 2D shows it after filing.
Wakashima teaches that “[b]y filling the gap with a resin, the
mechanical strength of the substrate is guaranteed” (Wakashima, [0043]).
The Examiner contends that Wakashima’s semiconductor package is
“analogous” to the claimed electronics package (Answer 4). The Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time the invention was made to have filled the prior art electronic
package’s cavity with an encapsulant to strengthen the interposer as taught
by Wakashima (Answer 4, 6).
Appellant contends that Wakashima does not describe “a cavity in a
pin carrier as recited in the claims” nor “substantially filling the pin carrier
with an encapsulant” (Br. 10; Reply Br. 1). Thus, Appellant asserts that the
admitted prior art combined with Wakashima does not describe every
element of the claimed invention (Br. 9-10).
In our opinion, too much emphasis has been placed by Appellant on
whether Wakashima teaches “a cavity in a pin holder,” without addressing
the Examiner’s reason for relying on Wakashima: for its teaching of a resin
base to strengthen a thin interposer substrate.
Wakashima describes a semiconductor package with a chip on one
side of a substrate and pillar interconnections on the other side of the
substrate. We agree with the Examiner that this package is “analogous” to
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013