Appeal No. 2000-0469 Page 4
Application No. 08/936,321
the Answer. We note that Appellant has not argued that Shreeve does not teach these limitations. The
Examiner then shows how Cranston teaches the missing elements, in particular, the “(DCA) structure
characterized by polymer matrix (line 56) made from thermoplastic material, typically an epoxy, which
is adhesive (line 57, hence non conductive transfer tape with adhesive on both the sides) and contains
chain of conductive spheres, (hence conductive epoxy, line 59).” See actual page 4 lines 15-18 of the
answer. Finally, the Examiner states that “the motivation to combine is reliability of connection between
an IC and a circuit board.” See actual page 5 lines 11-13 of the answer.
On page 2 of the Reply Brief, Appellant argues that the rejection is erroneous and the teachings
relied on by the Examiner “are not supported by the disclosure contained in the Cranston et al. patent.”
See page 2 lines 1-2 of the Reply Brief. In particular, Appellant argues that “there is no disclosure or
suggestion in the Cranston et al. patent that the conductive spheres are epoxy.” See page 2 lines 3-4 of
the Reply Brief. Appellant further argues that the Cranston patent actually discloses “that the use of
electrically conductive particles mixed with an insulative polymer matrix may be as an alternative
interconnection technique to soldering. The particles are typically, silver-plated nickel or glass sphere,
and are dispersed or arranged in the polymer matrix ... each extending through the matrix in the z
direction.” See page 2 lines 11-16 of the Reply Brief.
We note that Appellant’s claim 1 recites the following:
... double-sided nonconductive transfer tape having adhesive disposed on both sides
thereof, and having conductive epoxy interconnects formed therethrough ...
Therefore, all the claims, because of their dependency on claim 1, require the “conductive epoxy
interconnects.”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007