Appeal No. 2000-0159
Application 08/688,073
Each of independent claims 1 and 21 on appeal requires an
array of solder columns of a first cross-sectional area and a set
of solder structural support columns of second cross-sectional
area which exceeds the first by a factor of 5 or greater.
We generally agree with the examiner’s view expressed at
page 3 of the answer that appellants’ admitted prior art shows
all the features of independent claims 1 and 21 on appeal except
for the set of solder structural support columns of second cross-
sectional area. We do not agree with the examiner’s view that
Gaudenzi teaches the use of solder columns and pin-in-hole
conductive pins are equivalent approaches for mounting a device
to a printed circuit board. What the examiner characterizes as a
pin-in-hole arrangement is shown in Figures 6-8 of Gaudenzi as
conductive pins 58. In this respect, we agree with appellants’
observation at the bottom of page 4 of the brief that the
structure in Gaudenzi is substantially identical to appellants’
admitted prior art in Figure 1.
The earlier-noted equivalence asserted by the examiner is
based upon the statement at column 6, lines 17-19 of Gaudenzi
which states “[i]t is readily apparent that pins can be
incorporated with other solder techniques such as solder
columns.” Whereas Gaudenzi teaches and shows in Figures 6-8 that
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007