Ex parte WARREN - Page 5



               Appeal No. 2000-0469                                                                           Page 5                 
               Application No. 08/936,321                                                                                            
                       Upon careful review of Cranston, we find that Cranston does not teach the “double-sided                       

               nonconductive transfer tape having adhesive disposed on both sides thereof, and having conductive                     

               epoxy interconnects formed therethrough ” as recited in Appellant’s claim 1.  Rather, we find that                    

               Cranston discloses “a polymer matrix 18 comprised of an [sic, a] sheet or slab of adhesive epoxy ...”                 

               See Cranston column 3 lines 12-14.  Further we find Cranston discloses that “[p]rior to partial curing                

               of the matrix 18, a plurality of conductive particles 20, typically nickel or glass spheres 22 ... which are          

               coated with a solder 24, are dispersed throughout the matrix.”  See Cranston column 3 lines 21-25.                    

               Furthermore we find that Cranston discloses that “when the matrix 18, with the particles 20 arranged                  

               therein, is sandwiched between the conductive members 12 and 14, and the matrix is then finally cured,                

               the solder coating 24 on the spheres 22 will melt.  Typically, the solder 24 is an alloy comprised of tin,            

               lead and bismuth, and either cadmium, thallium and/or indium.”  See Cranston column 3 lines 37-44.                    

               Finally we find that Cranston discloses that “[t]he advantage of coating the spheres 22 with the low                  

               temperature melting solder 24 is that when the matrix 18 is finally cured, the solder melts and creates a             

               metallurgical bond between the members 12 and 14.” (Emphasis added) See Cranston column 3                             

               lines 58-61.                                                                                                          

                       Since we find no teaching of Cranston employing a “double-sided nonconductive transfer tape                   

               having adhesive disposed on both sides thereof, and having conductive epoxy interconnects formed                      

               therethrough”, we find that the rejection of claim 1 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over                 

               Shreeve and Cranston cannot be sustained.                                                                             

                       Further, we find that claims 2 through 5 are dependent from claim 1 and thereby recite the                    

               above limitation.  Therefore, we find that Shreeve and Cranston fail to teach all of the limitations of               






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007