Ex parte FORSTEN et al. - Page 2




         Appeal No. 1999-2143                                                       
         Application No. 08/734,866                                                 


              The subject matter on appeal relates to a method for                  
         implementing a process for monitoring a solder paste printing process      
         in the setting and soldering of a circuit board.  (Substitute appeal       
         brief, page 3.)  Further details of this appealed subject matter are       
         recited in illustrative claim 1, which is reproduced below from the        
         amendment filed August 28, 1997 as further amended on February 23,         
         1998:2                                                                     
                   1.  A method for implementing a process for                      
              monitoring the solder paste printing process in the                   
              setting and soldering of a circuit board, in which paste              
              printing process solder paste (5) is spread on a circuit              
              board (4) at the solder pads (7) of surface mounted                   
              devices or corresponding connecting pins, characterized in            
              that for evaluating the quality of the paste printing                 
              process at least one paste test pattern (9; 10; 18) is                
              arranged on the circuit board (4; 13), which test pattern             
              is constituted by a number of test elements (91, 92, 93,              
              94; 111, 112, 113, 114; 121, 122, 123, 124), the shapes of            
              which correspond to geometrical plane figures on the                  
              surface of the circuit board, which test elements have                
              varying degrees of difficulty in view of the printing                 
              process, and wherein the spatial relationship between test            
              elements is such that the distance between one test                   
              element and another is different and each of said test                
              elements has different width and the distance between                 

              2  Although the examiner states in the answer (page 2) that the       
         copy of the appealed claims as found in the appendix to the                
         appellants’ substitute brief is correct, we observe that this is not       
         the case.  Specifically, claim 1 as reproduced in the appendix to the      
         substitute brief does not incorporate the change made in the               
         amendment under 37 CFR § 1.116 filed February 23, 1998, which the          
         examiner entered.                                                          
                                         2                                          





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007