Appeal No. 2002-1182
Application 09/233,385
In proposing to combine Pasch and Rostoker to reject claim
50, the examiner finds that “Rostoker discloses the solder as a
conical shape in Fig 11b” (answer, pages 4 and 6), and concludes
somewhat cryptically that it would have been obvious “to
establish a desired shape during the reflow process of the
assembly wherein the reflow would increase the diameter of the
solder at the ends and thin out the middle to increase the
electrical connection” (answer, page 4) and that it would have
been an obvious matter of design choice “to establish a desired
shape prior to the reflow process of the assembly wherein the
reflow would increase the diameter of the solder at the ends and
thin out the middle to increase the electrical connection”
(answer, page 6).
This position is flawed for at least two reasons. First,
the examiner’s explanation of the proposed reference combination,
which presumably involves solder elements which are “cone shaped
prior to thermal reflow” as recited in claim 50, is unduly vague
and ambiguous. Second, the examiner’s conclusions rest on the
erroneous finding that Rostoker’s Figure 11b shows solder having
a conical shape. As correctly pointed out by the appellants,
Figure 11b illustrates the reflowed solder bump contacts as
having a generally “hourglass” shape rather than a conical shape.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007