Appeal 2007-2503
Application 10/225,978
86 S. Ct. 708 (1966); In re Fridolph, 134 F.2d 414, 416, 57 USPQ 122, 124
(CCPA 1943) (does the prior art suggest doing the thing which the Applicant
has done?)
ANALYSIS
There are two grounds of rejection on appeal, each of which is based
on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Examiner’s rejections and
Applicant’s response thereto are discussed below.
i) The Rejection of Claims 1, 3-22, 24-40, 42-47 and 75-85 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Asazu, Shinogi, Walker, Iwasaki, and
Shibasaki
Claims 1, 16, 30 and 75 are independent claims. Each of the
independent claims requires a substrate having an active surface and a back
surface where the active surface has a plurality of bond pads where at least
one substantially homogeneous bump comprising a nickel-containing
material is directly bonded to a bond pad. The independent claims also
require that at least one bond wire extend from at least one substantially
homogeneous bump. Dependent claim 4 further requires that palladium
material is “positioned” on the bump. With the exception of claim 4, Micron
has not argued the separate patentability of any subgroups of the claims as
provided by the rule so we select claim 1 as representative.2
The Examiner found that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
been guided to form Micron’s claimed semiconductor having a plurality of
2 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013