Appeal No. 96-4180
Application No. 08/225,138
art section, Ono states on page 3 and 4 that the prior art
shown in Figure 4 was an attempt to improve heat dissipation.
Ono further states that the Figure 4 prior art used lead pins
96 that are inserted into the through holes 92. Ono's Figure
4 does not teach that the slug 81 defines a critical distance
for soldering or that the distance is useful to define a
collapse distance of solder balls.
Higgins and Lin teach the use of solder balls, but
neither reference suggests the use of a slug to define the
critical distance for the collapse distance of the solder
balls. We agree that Higgins teaches that conductive pins may
be substituted by solder balls in column 5, lines 59-62.
However, none of the references suggest that Ono's slug 81
should be used to define the collapse distance of the solder
balls.
Furthermore, we fail to find any suggestion of modifying
Ono to provide slug 81 as a way to define a collapse distance
of solder balls as recited in Appellants' claim 1. The
Federal Circuit states that "[t]he mere fact that the prior
art may be modified in the manner suggested by the Examiner
does
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007