Appeal No. 2000-0421
Application 08/912,429
not to make in the brief have not been considered and are deemed
to be waived by appellants [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
The examiner indicates how he finds the claimed invention to
be obvious over the teachings of Ho [answer, pages 8-9].
Appellants argue that Ho teaches away from using solder ball
joints within the shadow of the integrated circuit chip because
it is difficult to route signal lines to solder joints located at
the package center [brief, pages 8-9]. The examiner responds
that the thermal conductors of Ho could also be used as
electrical conductors to improve the electrical performance of
the package, apparently relying on the teachings of Pastore
[answer, pages 12-13]. Appellants respond that the examiner has
incorrectly relied on Pastore, which was not applied in the
statement of the rejection. Appellants also argue that there is
no motivation to combine the teachings of Ho and Pastore [reply
brief, pages 1-3].
We will not sustain this rejection of the claims on appeal.
The examiner’s rejection improperly relies on teachings of
Pastore to support the rejection. References which are not
listed in the statement of the rejection are not considered by us
or by the courts. Even if we were to consider the combination of
Ho and Pastore, appellants have presented several cogent
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007