Appeal No. 1999-2403
Application 08/576,185
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being anticipated by Kushima. We are
satisfied that the examiner has provided evidence in Kushima of
the teachings of clauses (a) through (c) of claim 14 on appeal,
which is consistent with what appellants have admitted in the
prior art anyway according to our outline of the specification as
filed earlier in this opinion. There is, however, no teaching in
Kushima of the remaining clauses (d) and (e). According to the
features recited essentially at column 4 in the summary of
Kushima and the corresponding more detailed discussion at column
6 of this reference, there is no separating feature analogous to
clause
(d) nor is there an additional reflow operation in clause (e) of
claim 14 taught in this reference. There would apparently be no
need for such according to the teachings of Kushima anyway
because the requirement of the second reflow operation at the end
of claim 14 on appeal of achieving a spherical shape of the
solder balls is achieved with a single reflow operation as
reflected in the noted portions of column 4 and column 6 of
Kushima and generally indicated in process Figure 4(c). Because
we do not sustain the rejection for these reasons of independent
claim 14, the rejection of the remaining claims 18 through 21 on
appeal must also be reversed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007