Appeal No. 1999-2684
Application No. 08/825,400
since we find no express limitations in the language of the article of manufacture of
independent claim 1 to support these arguments. We note that the language of claim 1
includes alternative embodiments “a plurality of solder bumps disposed . . . to form a
predetermined profiled line or surface pattern.” Clearly, the solder bumps in Degani are
in “surface pattern;” therefore, we need not address the limitation of a “predetermined
profile line.” Furthermore the language of claim 1 recites that the “solder bumps have
tops which are free, flat and leveled.” Again, Degani shows that the solder bumps in
Figures 3 and 5 are “free, flat and leveled,” as broadly recited.
Appellants argue that Degani does not mention that the top surface of the solder
bumps are flat to assure a reliable connection. (See brief at page 3.) We agree with
appellants that this is not disclosed, but this argument is not persuasive since we find
no express limitation in the language of the article of manufacture of independent claim
1 to support this argument. Degani teaches flat tops in Figures 3 and 5.
Appellants argue that Degani does not disclose solder “bumps” or “balls” and that
the solder paste of Degani cannot be considered solder bumps (balls). (See brief at
page 3.) The examiner maintains that balls and bumps are not synonymous as
appellants argue. (See answer at pages 4-5.) We agree with the examiner. The
examiner provides definitions of “bump,” “lump” and “ball” on page 5 of the answer. We
agree with the examiner’s definitions. Here, we find that a solder “bump” is not a solder
“ball” and appellants have not identified any technical definition in the specification or
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007