Appeal 2006-1454
Application 09/004,524
Patent 5,483,421
48. In the Amendment, applicants presented no argument with respect to
the patentability of originally filed claims 1-12.
49. In the Amendment at page 8, applicants argued the following as to the
amended and new claims:
Turning now to the claims, claim 1 specifically requires that the
chip carrier be formed of an epoxy filed glass dielectric material, that
the chip carrier have a thermal coefficient of expansion of at least
17×10-6 ppm/°C, and requires an encapsulation material encapsulating
the first set of solder connections (i.e. the connections between the
chip and the chip carrier) and that the circuit board have a coefficient
of thermal expansion similar to that of the chip carrier. It is submitted
that none of the references cited either alone or in combination teach
or suggest such a structure.
50. In the Amendment at page 10, applicants argued with respect to Soga:
[T]here is no indication that the carrier can be made of this material
nor is there any indication that the chip carrier can be made of a
material with a dielectric constant as high as 17 to 20 × 10-6 ppm/c°.
The most that [Soga] can be said to teach is that a multi-layer
substrate of an organic can be used to which the ceramic chip carrier
is mounted with the carrier having a TCE of 10-15 × 10-6 ppm/°C.
This is not what applicants’ invention is. The applicants’
invention utilizes a glass filled epoxy substrate having a thermal
coefficient of expansion greater than 17 × 10-6 ppm/c° as a chip carrier
with a chip mounted thereon by solder interconnections which are
encapsulated[.] . . . Soga, et al. teach a carrier of a TCE of 10-15 ×
10-6 ppm/°C not a material having a TCE over 17 × 10-6 ppm/°C.
Thus, it is believed that Soga, et al. clearly does not teach or suggest
the present invention.
- 13 -
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013