Appeal 2007-2460
Application 10/709,179
Lang et al., 97 F.2d 626 (CCPA 1938) (“The fact that no single reference
shows all the steps and that no reference shows the steps in the exact order
named does not change the situation, since, in view of the prior art, what
appellant has done would be the obvious thing to do in order to produce the
claimed results.”)
ASE states that the Examiner is incorrect in finding that Akram
Figures 6-6A describe forming a protective layer on the backside of a chip.
(Reply Br. at 10-11). Akram Figure 5 depicts a protective layer 34 that is
applied to a backside of a chip at any convenient point in the semiconductor
fabrication process and Akram Figure 6 depicts a protective layer 30 formed
on the active surface of the chip. (Akram, Fig. 5-6A and col. 8, ll. 8-50).
Thus, Akram describes placing a protective layer on both the active layer
and the backside of the chip.
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of claims 17 and 19 over Ono
in view of Akram.
iii. The Rejection of Claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ono as applied to claims 15-16 and further in view
of Koh
ASE contends that claim 20 is allowable because the prior art fails to
teach or suggest forming at least one bump pad on the backside of a chip.
(Appeal Br. at 9). ASE states that claim 20 distinguishes over the prior art
for the same reasons that claim 15 distinguishes over the prior art. (Id.).
For the reasons we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15, we
likewise AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of claim 20 over Ono in view of
Koh.
15
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013