Appeal 2006-1454
Application 09/004,524
Patent 5,483,421
84. The Examiner further reasoned as follows (see Final Office Action
entered March 2, 2000, pages 4-5):
Additionally, Applicants repeatedly distinguished the amended
(patented) claims of Application '467 over the prior art by arguing that
the prior art fails to teach or suggest a chip carrier made of glass filled
epoxy FR-4 material which has a thermal coefficient of expansion of
at least 17 x 10-6 /°C. In fact, the above argument appears to be the
patentees’ primary basis for distinguishing the broadest claims,
independent Claims 1 and 7, from the prior art. Even more compelling
is the fact that the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences
(“Board”) were persuaded by the patentees’ above-mentioned
arguments and accordingly reversed the obviousness rejection made
by Examiner Sparks based on the above arguments by the patentees.
85. The Examiner then held as follows (see Final Office Action entered
March 2, 2000, page 6):
Thus, it is clear from the prosecution history that the patentees
presented arguments and made changes to the claims with respect to
the subject matter of a chip carrier made of glass filled epoxy FR-4
material which has a thermal coefficient of expansion of at least 17 x
10-6 ppm/°C and surrendered claim scope that does not include the
limitation of a chip carrier made of glass filled epoxy FR-4 material
which has a thermal coefficient of expansion of at least 17 x 10-6
ppm/°C.
Accordingly, the Applicants’ exclusion from the Reissue
Claims 21-25 and 34 of the “glass filled epoxy FR-4 material”
limitation and the “glass filled epoxy FR-4 material which has a
thermal coefficient of expansion of at least 17 x 10-6 ppm/°C”
limitation makes the Reissue claims broader than the patent claims in
this way and is prohibited by 35 USC § 251.
- 23 -
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013