Appeal 2006-1454
Application 09/004,524
Patent 5,483,421
amendment. Thus, Appellants argue the encapsulating limitation is a “material
narrowing” of the reissue claims. We disagree.
Appellants present evidence that is not part of the prosecution history, and
that is not a showing related to what was known by a person having ordinary skill
in the art at the time an amendment was made. As discussed in Section III. A. (11)
above, admitting evidence not available to the public would undermine the public
notice function of the patent and its prosecution history. Specifically, Appellants
offer a declaration statement from Mr. Gedney:
7. The invention disclosed and claimed in the ‘421 patent
was conceived when he and the aforesaid Tamar A. Sholtes, his
co-inventor, were members of a team at IBM's Endicott facility
working on direct chip attachment. We realized that recent
developments in encapsulation technology had made it possible to
mount integrated circuit chips on chip carriers with higher coefficients
of thermal expansion ("CTEs") than previously thought possible.
These developments allowed us to consider building chip carriers out
of organic dielectric materials such as glass-filled epoxies (commonly
referred to as FR-4 materials) frequently used for printed circuit board
or cardstock, or polyimides frequently used in tape automated
bonding.
The “facts” recited in the declaration are not found in the prosecution history, and
Appellants do not attempt to show that a person skilled in the art would have
- 60 -
Page: Previous 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013