Appeal No. 1998-3045
Application 08/612,693
admission then leads to the examiner’s view as to what the only differences are between
the appellants’ claimed invention and the prior art, and quite another to state that the
appellants have admitted to what the only differences are between the claimed invention
and the prior art. What we have here is only the former, not the latter.
The appellants have argued the claims together as a whole and pointed out only two
differences between the claimed invention and both Neumann and Tanaka, (1) that the
references do not disclose positioning trim pads on the bottom side of the substrate, and
(2) that the references do not teach the placement of C5 solder bump connections on the
bottom side. However, with respect to the use of C5 solder bumps on the bottom side of
the substrate, the appellants have ignored its own disclosed prior art which is a part of the
stated ground of rejection. On page 3 of the specification, even though it is in the section
entitled “Detailed Description of the Preferred Embodiment,” the appellants further discuss
what was conventional or well known in the art regarding C5 solder attachments. In
particular, the specification states (page 3, lines 16-24):
On the bottom side of module 10, is an array 30 or plurality of
C5 solder attachments. The Controlled Collapse Chip Carrier
Connection (C5) is well known in the industry and uses a
plurality of precisely formed solder spheres to create the circuit
interconnections between the module 10 and a mother board
40. Those skilled in the art will readily appreciate that the use
of C5 spheres results in a highly controlled and uniform space
being formed between the bottom of the module 10 and the
top of the mother board 40. The C5 technology is renowned
for its ability to control this gap while producing highly reliable
solder joints. (Emphasis added.)
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007