Appeal 2006-2676
Application 10/341,140
The Examiner has correlated the features of claims 1 and 15 on appeal
based upon the teachings and showings of figures 10 through 28 of
Takashima, with a particular emphasis upon the showing in figure 25 and the
corresponding discussion at column 14, lines 37 through 61. A
corresponding discussion appears to exist in the Summary of the Invention at
column 6, line 50 through column 7, line 16.
Each of independent claims 1 and 15 on appeal recite a particular
relationship of the inner diameter Dv of the via holes and the thickness t of
an underlining chip mounting substrate. In these claims, this relationship is
recited to be greater than zero.
As to these features, the Examiner’s restatement of the rejection in the
Responsive Arguments beginning at page 6 of the Answer persuasively
indicates that according to the dimensions shown in figure 25 and discussed
in the various parts of Takashima associated with figures 10 through 28, they
do correlate in such a manner as to yield a broadly recited, relative
dimension of this inner diameter and chip mounting substrate thickness
greater than zero. In Takashima the corresponding thickness is labeled as B
of an underlining substrate 22 and the corresponding inner diameter is
labeled as element A of a through (via) hole 27. For the optimization
features of Takashima to be met, the ratio of B/A must be less than or equal
to 0.3, which clearly is greater than zero as required by independent claims 1
and 15 on appeal. Appellants’ arguments at page 4 of the Brief are
misplaced since they effectively admit in part that Takashima meets the
features of claim 1 on appeal.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013