Appeal No. 2005-0142 Page 5
Application No. 09/904,246
B. OBVIOUSNESS DETERMINATION
Having determined what subject matter is being claimed, the next inquiry is
whether the subject matter would have been obvious. "In rejecting claims under 35
U.S.C. Section 103, the examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie
case of obviousness." In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed.
Cir. 1993) (citing In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992)). "'A prima facie case of obviousness is established when the teachings from the
prior art itself would appear to have suggested the claimed subject matter to a person of
ordinary skill in the art.'" In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed.
Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA
1976)).
Here, the examiner admits, "Oka does not disclose the electrical connection
including a conductor coupling the first and second contacts and extending generally
along the plane." (Examiner's Answer at 3.) For its part, Wachtler discloses "a high
density interconnect land grid array package (HDIP), generally at 10." Col. 7, ll. 50-51.
More specifically, "an array of pads 20 [is formed] on the bottom surface of thin film
overlay 18," id. at ll. 61-62, and "a solder ball 22 is formed on each bond pad 20. . . ."
Id. at ll. 66-67. "Infrared, convention or vapor phase reflow is then used melt solder
balls 22 sufficient to mechanically and electrically connect each pad 20 to a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007