Appeal No. 2000-0421
Application 08/912,429
We will sustain this rejection. We agree with the examiner
that the solder ball 26 located under thermal conductor 28 also
functions as a second electrical interconnection underlying a
shadow region of the integrated circuit chip as pointed out by
the examiner. We also note that Pastore discloses five solder
balls under the integrated circuit chip [Figure 4], but only one
of these solder balls is also under the thermal chip 28.
Therefore, the other four solder balls clearly provide an
electrical interconnection path and underlie a shadow region of
the integrated circuit chip as claimed. The argument that a
ground trace is not a signal path is not understood because it
still appears to be an electrical interconnection as claimed.
Accordingly, Pastore clearly anticipates the invention recited in
claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13 and 14.
We now consider the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10,
13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by the
disclosure of Bond. The examiner indicates how he reads the
claimed invention on the disclosure of Bond [answer, page 6].
Appellants argue that Bond does not disclose the claimed second
electrical interconnection. According to appellants, the solder
balls 80' in Bond provide a thermal conduction path only, and not
a second electrical connection [brief, page 7]. The examiner
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007