Appeal No. 2002-0981
Application 09/005,895
The examiner has not explained why, if Zhou’s solder
powder/fluxing agent, which bonds surfaces together during
reflow, were substituted for MacKay’s solder paste, one of
ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation
that the solder material would be pulled away from the stencil
side walls and anchored to the substrate pad as desired by
MacKay. Also, the examiner has not explained why one of ordinary
skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation that the
use in MacKay’s method of Zhou’s solder powder/fluxing agent,
which bonds surfaces together during reflow, would permit the
stencil to remain in place during reflow and then be removed as
required by MacKay. The examiner further has not explained why,
in view of these considerations, one of ordinary skill in the art
would have had a reasonable expectation of success in using
Wood’s conductive adhesive in MacKay’s method.3
Accordingly, we conclude that the examiner has not carried
the burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of
the method claimed in the appellant’s claims 1-3, 5, 12, 13, 16-
21 and 35-40.
3 The examiner does not rely upon Pennisi or Dery for any
disclosure that remedies the above-discussed deficiency in
MacKay, Zhou and Wood as to the independent claims.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007