Appeal 2006-1454
Application 09/004,524
Patent 5,483,421
(2) Second, applicants amended rejected independent claim 7 to
add the requirement of “an encapsulation material encapsulating said first set of
solder connections”.
83. The Examiner reasoned as follows (see Final Office Action entered
March 2, 2000, pages 3-4):
Claims 21-23 and 34 are broader than the original patent claims
by the following two limitations: (1) the requirement that the material
of the chip carrier is a “glass filled epoxy” has not been included in
these claims; and (2) the requirement of “said chip carrier having a
coefficient of thermal expansion of at least 17 x 10-6 ppm/C°” has
been completely left out of these claims.
Claims 24 and 25 are broader than the original patent claims in
that the coefficient of thermal expansion of the chip carrier (i.e., “at
least 17 x 10-6 ppm/C°”) has been completely left out of these claims.
It is the position of the present Examiner that the Applicants’
Claims 21-25 and 34 are drawn to an invention surrendered during the
prosecution in order to obtain allowance of the original patent claims.
The Examiner draws attention to the original claims presented in US
5,483,421. Claims 1 and 7, as originally filed in patent Application
'467, correspond to Claims 21 and 34, respectively, of the instant
Reissue Application except that Reissue Claims 21 and 34 now each
include the limitation “an encapsulation material encapsulating said
first set of solder connections.” However, this limitation was not
considered to be germane to the prior art rejection given in
Application '467. This feature was taught by several references cited
by Examiner Sparks during prosecution of Application '467.
- 22 -
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013