Appeal No. 1997-4069 Page 13
Application No. 08/282,913
exist, a twelve inch hole is cut through the vibration
isolation tabletop.” Id. at ll. 1-4. “This allows the DUT 43
in its socket to extend into the light tight enclosure.” Col.
5, ll. 46-47.
The examiner fails to show that the hole through the
vibration isolation tabletop would have suggested mounting an
IC die over an opening in a PCB so that a sensor probe can
access the die through the opening. Rather than being mounted
on a PCB, the reference’s DUT is placed in “[a] test socket or
‘daughter board’ ... mounted on [a] test head 39 ....” Col.
5, ll. 23-25. The hole on which the examiner relies is not in
the test socket/daughter board or in anything on which the DUT
is mounted. Instead, the hole is “cut into the vibration
isolation table.” Id. at ll. 45-46. Rather than permitting a
sensor probe to access an IC die, moreover, the examiner
admits that the hole “allows the DUT in its socket to extend
into the light tight enclosure.” (Examiner’s Answer at 12.)
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded that
teachings from the prior art would appear to have suggested
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007