Appeal No. 2002-1182
Application 09/233,385
therewith, as being unpatentable over Pasch in view of Rostoker
and Dalal.
Dalal discloses a flip chip employing solder elements 41
coated with tin 43. Dalal’s description of the advantages
afforded by this composition (see column 6, line 59 et seq.)
would have provided the artisan with ample motivation or
suggestion to use same in the Pasch (or Rostoker) flip chip
module, thereby arriving at the subject matter recited in claim
51. The appellants’ contention that the rejection is unsound
because Dalal does not make up for the failure of Pasch and/or
Rostoker to teach or suggest solder elements which are “cone
shaped prior to thermal reflow” as recited in parent claim 50 is
unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above.
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 50 through 61
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed; however, since the basic
thrust of the affirmance differs from the rationale advanced by
the examiner in support of the rejections, we hereby designate
the affirmance as a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 CFR
§ 1.196(b) to allow the appellants a fair opportunity to react
thereto (see In re Kronig, 539 F.2d 1300, 1302-03, 190 USPQ 425,
426-27 (CCPA 1976)).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007