Appeal 2007-2342
Application 10/884,654
In attempting to distinguish the claimed invention from Wakashima,
Appellant contends
. . . that AAPA and Wakashima et al. teach away from any type
of combination. AAPA describes placing a pin carrier 26 onto
an interposer 24. Wakashima et al. describes attaching solder
balls 12 to interconnections 11 in a substrate (see, e.g., FIG. 1
and paragraph 35 of Wakashima et al). Applicant can not see
how the substrate 10 and solder balls 12 of Wakashima et al.
could be incorporated into the interposer/pin carrier/cavity/
electronic component configuration of AAPA.
(Br. 14.)
We do not find this argument persuasive. As noted by the Examiner
(Answer 9), the rejection does not depend on incorporating Wakashima’s
substrate and solder balls into the prior art package. “Wakashima is used
only to show the obviousness of using resin material. This material,
therefore, may be used in either a pin grid array or bump grid array”
(Answer 9). Other than identifying a difference in the type of electronic
connector, Appellant has not explained why this difference would have led
the skilled worker to view the solution for strengthening a thin substrate of
reduced mechanical strength in Wakashima’s semiconductor package as
inapplicable to an electronic package comprising pins – which are analogous
in function.
Appellant also argues that “that the only teaching or suggestion as to
‘securing an electronic component to the interposer such that the electronic
component is positioned within the cavity in the pin carrier’ in combination
with ‘substantially filling the cavity in the pin carrier with an encapsulant’ is
found in Applicant’s disclosure” (Br. 11). See also Br. 14, 15. We are not
convinced by this argument. Based on admissions in the instant
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013