Appeal 2007-2460
Application 10/709,179
more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to
their established functions.
KSR at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. As recognized in KSR, “[a] person of
ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”
KSR at 1742, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
On appeal, Applicants bear the burden of showing that the Examiner
has not established a legally sufficient basis for combining the teachings of
the prior art. Applicants may sustain its burden by showing that where the
Examiner relies on a combination of disclosures, the Examiner failed to
provide sufficient evidence to show that one having ordinary skill in the art
would have done what Applicants did. United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39
(1966).
ANALYSIS
There are three grounds of rejection on appeal, each of which is based
upon prior art. The Examiner’s rejections and ASE’s response thereto are
discussed below.
i) The Rejection of Claims 15, 16 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(e) as anticipated by Ono
ASE states that claim 15 is representative for the rejection of
claims 15, 16 and 18. ASE claim 15 is a method of fabricating bumps
on the backside of a chip. The claim requires that a bump pad be
formed on the backside of the chip and that a bump be formed on the
bump pad.
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013