Appeal No. 2006-0031
Application 09/377,286
OPINION
We reverse the aforementioned rejection. We need to address
only the independent claims, i.e., claims 1 and 10. Claim 1
requires a trace that applies an attractive force to solder placed
on a pad, and a trace stub to counteract the attractive force
applied by the trace. Claim 10 requires a trace coupled to a bond
pad, and an element adapted to counteract an attractive force
applied by the trace to solder placed on the bond pad.
Healy discloses (col. 2, lines 18-21):
Referring now in detail to FIG. 1 and FIG. 2, a
printed circuit trace 1 is supported by encasing
insulation 2. The insulation has been removed from a
portion of one side of the trace to expose the
interconnect pad 4.
The examiner argues that Healy’s figure 1 shows that portions
of the trace and the stub (opposite the trace) are exposed (answer,
page 5). As indicated by the above-cited excerpt from Healy, the
removal of insulation exposes the interconnect pad. Healy does not
disclose that the trace, which is to the left of the interconnect
pad in figure 2, is exposed.
The examiner argues that the attractive force of the trace on
the solder is created by the trace being coupled to and extending
away from the pad (answer, page 5). The appellant’s specification
states that soft solder tends to wick along a trace, and that the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007