Appeal No. 1998-3033
Application No. 08/794,982
Turning to the anticipation rejection of claim 23, we
agree with the examiner (Answer, page 4) that layer 34 in Noll
functions as a ball limiting metallurgy because it limits the
size of the solder ball 40, and because it is of the same
metal (i.e., chromium) as used by appellants (specification,
paragraph bridging pages 3 and 4). We also agree with the
examiner (Answer, page 4) that “[i]t is the patentability of
the final product which must be determined in a product-by-
process claim, and not the patentability of the process.”
With that in mind, we agree with the examiner (Answer, page 5)
that Noll discloses a spherically-shaped solder ball 40 like 2
the solder ball disclosed by appellants. As stated
previously, the method by which the spherically-shaped solder
ball is made does not aid in the patentability determination
of the product. We likewise agree with the examiner (Answer,
page 4) that the claims on appeal recite process steps for
forming the at least one eutectic composition. On the other
hand, we agree with appellants’ arguments (Brief, pages 9, 10
and 13) that Noll does not disclose “at least one eutectic
2Appellants state (specification, page 13, lines 9 and
10) that the solder is “re-flowed to bring it back to its
spherical shape.”
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007