Appeal No. 2000-0811
Application 08/964,734
gives a specific example of a material suitable for forming the
decal, i.e., aluminum. The appellants’ own definition overrides
any contrary definition from a dictionary.
The appellants appear to argue that Trabucco’s masking plate
18 cannot be a “decal” within the meaning of the appellants’
claims because of the material with which it is made, a metal or
a ceramic. For reasons discussed above, the argument is
rejected. Note that in column 2, lines 57-60, Trabucco ‘737
states:
Masking plate 18 is preferably made of an inert and
unsolderable material, such a ceramic, tungsten or
graphite for example, although the invention is not
limited thereto.
Ceramics is one of the suitable materials identified in the
appellants’ own specification for forming the “decal.”
Appellants then argue that the solder balls of Trabucco ‘737
“are never removably secured as the appellant has claimed, since
they are never secured in the first place.” In its reply brief,
the appellants state on page 2: “[t]he solder members must be
removably secured to the decal, such as with an adhesive capable
of losing its adhesive strength.” We find, however, that the
solder balls of Trabucco are removably secured to the masking
plate 18 by physical confinement. As is described in column 2,
lines 64-65 of Trabucco ‘737, “a preformed solder ball 24 is
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007