Appeal No. 1999-2403
Application 08/576,185
solder balls upon the receiving structure. This is essentially
set forth in lines 1-13 of the originally filed claim 11, which
amounts to the preamble of this Jepson-type claim, thus impliedly
admitting that such structures within this portion of the
preamble were admitted prior art.
The paragraph bridging pages 1 and 2 of the specification as
filed details known problems in the prior art with the prior art
depositor devices indicating that after the reflow operation has
been performed there was no true solder ball shape achieved
because there remains thereon an impression of the depositor
structure. This assessment is essentially duplicated in the
first paragraph, lines 1-22, at page 8 of the specification has
filed.
We reverse the rejection because there is ample evidence in
the specification and claims as filed that depositor structures
subject to releasing solder at reflow temperatures were
essentially known in the art and relied upon by the appellants in
their approach to disclosing the presently claimed invention.
Appellants’ reliance upon Aulicino in the amendatory material at
page 10 of the specification as filed is not regarded as being an
introduction of new matter. This reference itself is prior art
to the presently filed application because of its filing date of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007