Appeal 2006-1454
Application 09/004,524
Patent 5,483,421
60. Applicants did not amend any claim in the Amendment After Final.
Rather, applicants “requested that the Examiner reconsider his rejection of the
claims and allow Claims 1, 2, 4-8 and 10-14.”
61. In the After Final at page 2, applicants argued that the invention
claimed distinguishes over the art as follows:
[T]he prior art does not teach making a chip carrier from organic
glass-filled epoxy material having a coefficient of thermal expansion
of at least 17 × 10-6 ppm/°C, and the prior art does not teach using a
circuit board having a similar co-efficient of thermal expansion as the
chip carrier.
62. Applicants further argued at page 2:
[A]pplicants acknowledge that chip carriers and circuit boards have
been made of ceramic having similar coefficients of thermal
expansion. What applicants do claim is that nobody has disclosed
forming a chip carrier of organic glass filled material and a circuit
board formed of an organic material having a coefficient of thermal
expansion similar to that of the chip carrier and, moreover, that the
carrier has a coefficient of thermal expansion of at least 17 × 10-6
ppm/°C and joining an organic chip carrier to an organic board with
solder connections.
63. Applicants also argued at page 4 of the After Final:
Encapsulating material capsulates [sic] the set of solder connections
and capsulating [sic] the chip to the chip carrier. Such encapsulating
also is not taught by Ushifusa, et al., or by the European reference [to
Ogihara].
- 16 -
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013