Appeal No. 96-4180
Application No. 08/225,138
the claim.” In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d
1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
We note that Appellants' claim 1 recites "a slug,
comprised of a thermally conductive material and having first
and second surfaces, the first surface of the slug lying below
the plane of the first surface of the substrate . . . wherein
the slug extends below the plane of the first surface of the
substrate by a distance selected to define a desired shape for
the plurality of solder balls when the integrated circuit
package is mounted to the circuit board.” Therefore,
Appellants' claim 1 recites the collapse distance as defined
by the distance the slug extends below the plane of the
substrate.
Upon a careful review of Ono, Higgins and Lin, we find
that
neither reference teaches these above limitations as recited
in Appellants' claim 1. We agree that Figure 4 of Ono
discloses a slug 81 having the same shape as Appellants'
disclosed slug 14 in Figure 2B. However, Ono discloses on
page 13 that Figure 4 is a cross section of a prior art
substrate for mounting electronic components. In the prior
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007