Appeal No. 2005-0896
Application 09/947,125
The appellants argue that “since the element 17 cited in
Angulas et al constitutes circuitry, it cannot be on both sides
of the insulating layer” (brief, page 7), and that “there is
claimed both circuitazation [sic] on a first portion of the
insulating substrate and protection pads on a second portion of
the insulating substrate in claims 6-14, and both references
teach only circuitazation [sic] on a single portion of the
substrate” (reply brief, page 2). Angulas’ electrically
conductive copper layers (17 and 19) are relied upon only as
being the appellants’ protection pads. Angulas’ circuitized
substrate (13) provides the circuitry corresponding to the
appellants’ recited circuit pattern.
For the above reasons we conclude that the printed circuit
board claimed in the appellants’ claim 6 would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art over the applied prior art.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of that claim and claims 7,
8 and 10-14 that stand or fall therewith.
Claim 9
Claim 9, which depends from claim 6, requires that the
semiconductor chip comprises part of a CSP (chip scale
packaging), BGA (ball grid array) or PGA (pin grid array).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007