Appeal No. 2002-1182
Application 09/233,385
Be all this as it may, however, both Pasch and Rostoker
establish that the flip chip electronic module recited in claim
50 lacks novelty. Each of these references discloses a flip chip
module composed of a semiconductor chip, a substrate, and a
dielectric interposer having apertures, all as recited in claim
50. Each also discloses that the module is thermally reflowed
such that the chip and substrate are electrically and
mechanically interconnected by solder elements which are not in
contact with an adjacent solder element as recited in claim 50.
Although neither teaches that the solder elements are “cone
shaped prior to thermal reflow” as recited in the claim,4 this
limitation addresses the process by which the claimed thermally
reflowed module is made and, on the record before us, does not
distinguish the claimed module from that disclosed by either
Pasch or Rostoker. In this regard, it is the patentability of
the product claimed, and not of the recited process limitations,
which must be established. See In re Hallman, 655 F.2d 212, 215,
210 USPQ 609, 611 (CCPA 1981); In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535,
173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972). The patentability of a claimed
4 The appellants’ specification indicates that “[t]he cone
shape solder 637 permits a reduced force for a given I/O pad to
allow for some non-planarity between the chip [i.e., the die],
the interposer, and the substrate” (specification, page 11).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007