Ex parte DOCKERTY et al. - Page 2



          Appeal No. 2000-0159                                                        
          Application 08/688,073                                                      


               an array of high melting temperature solder columns of first           
          cross-sectional area attached to an array of electrically                   
          transmitting pads on a first side of the substrate;                         
               a set of high melting temperature solder structural support            
          columns of second cross-sectional area, the second cross-                   
          sectional area exceeding the first by a factor of five or                   
          greater, attached to pads at perimeter locations on the first               
          side of the substrate;                                                      
               a plurality of connections between first and second cross-             
          sectional area solder columns and respectively located surface              
          mount pads on the printed circuit board using reflowed low                  
          melting temperature solder; and                                             
               a heat sink thermally contacting a structural element on a             
          second side, opposite the first side, of the substrate.                     

               The following references are relied on by the examiner:                
          Kohara et al. (Kohara)        4,561,011           Dec. 24, 1985             
          Gaudenzi et al. (Gaudenzi)    5,490,040           Feb.  6, 1996             
          Appellants’ admitted prior art in Figure 1 discussed at page 6,             
          line 11 through page 7, line 33.                                            
               Claims 1-10 and 21-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103             
          according to the final rejection.  As to claims 1-10 and 21-24,             
          the examiner relies upon appellants’ admitted prior art in view             
          of Gaudenzi, with the addition of Kohara as to claims 2-5.                  
               Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and the             
          examiner, reference is made to the brief and the answer for the             
          respective details thereof.                                                 
                                        OPINION                                       
               We reverse.                                                            

                                            2                                         




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007