Appeal No. 2000-0806
Application No. 09/016,398
In the Answer, the Examiner admits that Dordi does
not suggest vias in its printed circuit board, but asserts
that Dordi's silence with regard to the use of vias does not
rule out their use, and that it is "common practice" to use
vias. The Examiner points to Selna for a teaching of vias in
a printed circuit board as "an obvious extension to the Dordi
device." The Examiner asserts that it would be "simple" to 1
substitute a printed circuit board with vias for another board
lacking them. The Examiner admits that Dordi teaches matching
coefficients of thermal expansion within a discussion of the
prior art, but insists that such teaching is fully applicable
against the instant invention. The Examiner further asserts
that Figure 6 of Dordi illustrates a carrier base and
reinforcement base being substantially the same size as the
semiconductor chip.
As pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first
1We note that the Examiner's reference to Appellant's
argument here as "[n]onsense" is inconsistent with the spirit
of 37 CFR § 1.3, which requires applicants and their attorneys
to conduct themselves with decorum and courtesy. MPEP §
707.07(d) cautions Examiners that "[e]verything of a personal
nature must be avoided" in Office communications.
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007