Appeal No. 1998-2144
Application No. 08/568,847
may differ from the prior art (Figure 1) structures on the interior surface of substrate 31
which resemble the “elongate columns” of Figure 3 (i.e., what the improvement over the
prior art may be with respect to the “contact means”). If, on the other hand, particular
interior surface portions of substrate 72 (Figure 3) correspond to the “means,” the question
is raised as to how the particular portions differ from the surface portions in prior art Figure
1. Finally, the location of the claimed “contact means” is required merely to be “on the
interior” -- within -- the case, rather than on the interior surface of the case. Again,
however, it is unclear what disclosed structure may correspond to such a “contact means.”
Although what the disclosed structure may be which corresponds to the “contact
means” is unclear to us, and neither appellants nor the examiner have explained the
limitation, there is no rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph for claim
indefiniteness. We therefore presume that the claims pass muster under section 112, and
leave it to appellants and the examiner to clarify the record.
Turning to the rejection, the examiner offers as evidence of obviousness of the
claimed subject matter the IBM TDB, which “discloses a module that has a case (1) with
electrical contacts thereon and contains an integrated circuit chip (2) connected to a circuit
board (4) by the C4 method.” (Final Rejection, page 2.) For “columnar means and contact
means,” the examiner turns to Sumida. “Sumida teaches a module including a circuit
board (10) formed of electrically conducting vias (8a-8c) connected to electrical
connections (1, 2); columnar means formed of additional conductive vias (4a, 4b) for heat
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007