Appeal 2006-3236
Inter Partes Reexamination Control No. 95/000,006
surface 28 in the '595 patent. As discussed in Issue (3), the limitation of "a
second wall surface disposed around a circumference of the semiconductor
integrated circuit device so as to limit horizontal movement of the
semiconductor integrated circuit device" does not define how much, or
under what conditions the second wall surface limits horizontal movement.
The term "surface" has a broad meaning in the '595 patent and may
include several distinct surfaces, e.g., the "upper surface" of the tray ('595
patent, col. 3, ll. 36-43) includes all the surfaces of the storage portions on
the top of the tray, including the claimed "bottom surface," "first wall
surface," and "second wall surface." Accordingly, the claimed "bottom"
surface may be considered to include and extend from the bottommost
horizontal surface to the lower edge of the inclined surface as shown in the
Requester's figure.
Brahmbhatt's structure is capable of storing a semiconductor
integrated circuit device as claimed. Claims 1 and 16 are anticipated.
Brahmbhatt recognizes that the surface of the tray should not come
into contact with the solder balls of the integrated circuit package (col. 1,
ll. 55-65). Therefore, the inclined guide-in surface in Figure 17 leading to
the seating surface would necessarily be angled to prevent the surface from
coming into contact with the ball terminals as the package is being inserted
and would not contact the ball terminals of a package sitting on the inclined
surface as recited in claim 2. The angles of the inclined surface and the
vertical surface in Figure 17 anticipate the limitations of claims 9-11.
- 42 -
Page: Previous 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013