Appeal No. 1997-1248
Application 08/480,109
claims do not clearly specify that the solder ball is in
direct contact/touch with only the Cu layer or the phased
Cu/Cr layer, but simply as ‘a solder ball ... encasing edges
of said wettable layer and said phased layer with...’ as set
forth in claim 9.” Appellant counters [reply brief, pages 2
to 3] that “encasing” is reasonably synonymous with “direct
contact/touch”. We find that the phrase “encasing edges”
(claim 9, line 13) reasonably implies that the ball is in
direct contact with the edges forming the frustum cone.
Furthermore, we do not find such structure in Satou, and nor
do we find that it would have been obvious to come up with
this structure by merely using the disclosure of Satou.
Thus, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of
claim 9 over Satou. Furthermore, since there is no additional
evidence or any other line of reasoning, the obviousness
rejection of dependent claims 10 and 11 over Satou is also not
sustained.
REVERSED
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007