UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
95/000,099 06/13/2005 6565008 4459-176RE-EX 9401
26263 7590 11/17/2011
SNR DENTON US LLP
P.O. BOX 061080
CHICAGO, IL 60606-1080
EXAMINER
KIELIN, ERIK J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3992
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/17/2011 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Inter Partes
KINGPAK TECH. INC.
Patent Owner, Appellant
v.
ORIENT SEMICONDUCTOR ELECTRONICS, LTD.
Requestor, Respondent
_____
Appeal 2011-010571
Reexamination Control No. 95/000,099
United States Patent 6,565,008 B2
Technology Center 3900
____________
Before RICHARD TORCZON, KARL D. EASTHOM, and
KEVIN F. TURNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
Opinion for the Board filed by EASTHOM, Administrative Patent Judge.
Opinion concurring in part filed by TORCZON, Administrative Patent
Judge.
EASTHOM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-010571
Reexamination Control 95/000,099
Patent 6,565,008 B2
This proceeding arose from a request by Orient Semiconductor
Electronics, Ltd. for an inter partes reexamination of U.S. 6,565,008 B2 to
Ho et al., Module Card and a Method for Manufacturing the Same (issued
May 20, 2003). Appellant, patent owner Kingpak, appeals under 35 U.S.C.
§§ 134(b) and 306 from the Examiner’s Right of Appeal Notice (RAN)
rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, 10, 20, and 23-26 of the ‘008 patent. (App.
Br. 6.) Respondent, requestor Orient, supports the Examiner’s decision.
(Resp. Br. 9-19.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. 35 U.S.C. §§ 6, 134,
and 315.
We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Examiner rejected the claims on several different bases, including
impermissible broadening, written description, and prior art. A discussion of
the disclosed invention follows.
The ‘008 Patent (Factual Findings)
P1. The ‘008 patent discloses a module card and a method of making
same. (Abstract.) Figure 2 from the ‘008 patent appears next:
The module card depicted supra includes one or more chips 12
mounted on a printed circuit board (PCB) 14 in (an epoxy) packing area 21
Appeal 2011-010571
Reexamination Control 95/000,099
Patent 6,565,008 B2
3
and electrically connected to golden fingers 15. (Col. 2, ll. 51-60; col. 3,
ll. 26-34.)
1
P2. The golden fingers were known prior to the filing of the
‘008 patent and are depicted in prior art “FIG. 1 showing the cleaved view of
a prior module card. The Golden fingers 15 is [sic, are] used to insert into a
slot of a computer main board.” (Col. 1, ll. 26-29.)
P3. The manufacturing technique disclosed in the ‘008 patent
involves designating “symmetrical lines [which] may be between two
packing areas 21 or two golden fingers 15 area[s]” (col. 3, ll. 35-36) as
represented next:
1
The ‘008 patent originally refers to “packing areas 21” and “packing areas
12” (col. 3, ll. 1-6) but the former appears correct based on amendments to
the Specification (see App. Br. 11) which also originally refers to “the chips
12” (col. 3, l. 9.)
Appeal 2011-010571
Reexamination Control 95/000,099
Patent 6,565,008 B2
4
Figure 3 above represents part of the disclosed manufacturing
technique with cutting occurring on “symmetrical lines 32, 34, 35, 36” to
form 12 module cards. (Col. 3, ll. 17-19)
P4. Prior to cutting, chips 12 are mounted and a “packing layer is
formed on the packing areas 21 and the chips 12. At least, two module cards
can be formed after cutting the symmetrical lines. . . . The packing layer
includes the material of epoxy mold compound.” (Col. 3, ll. 30-37.)
The Claims
Exemplary claims 1, 6, and 24-26 of the ‘008 patent under
reexamination follow:
1. A method of manufacturing a batch of module cards comprising steps of
chip-on-board mounting a plurality of chips directly on a base board, at least
one chip of the plurality of chips being mounted with a respective packing
area of said base board, each respective packing area of said base board
associated with one respective, separate golden fingers area for electrically
connecting to said at least one chip mounted within said respective packing
area, each golden fingers area insertable into a slot of a main-board, two
adjoining respective packing areas of said base board forming a pair of
packing areas across a respective first symmetrical line, two adjoining
respective golden fingers areas forming a pair of golden fingers areas across
a respective second symmetrical line; forming a packing layer over the
plurality of chips in all respective packing areas and not the respective,
separate golden fingers areas; and forming individual ones of said batch of
module cards by cutting the base board at all symmetrical lines.
6. A module card manufactured according a method comprising steps of:
chip-on-board mounting a plurality of chips directly on a base board, at least
one chip of the plurality of chips being mounted within a respective packing
area of said base board, each respective packing area of said base board
associated with one respective golden fingers area, one golden fingers area
for electrically connecting to said at least one chip mounted within said
Appeal 2011-010571
Reexamination Control 95/000,099
Patent 6,565,008 B2
5
respective packing area and insertable into a slot of a main-board, two
adjoining respective packing areas of said base board forming a pair of
packing areas across a respective first symmetrical line, two adjoining
respective golden fingers areas forming a pair of golden fingers areas across
a respective second symmetrical line; forming a packing layer over the
plurality of chips in all respective packing areas and not the golden fingers
areas; and forming the module card with straight edges by cutting the base
board at all symmetrical lines.
24. A module card comprising: a base board; a chip mounted on a surface of
said base board; a golden fingers area on said base board electrically
connected to said chip and insertable into a slot of a main-board; and a
packing layer formed over said Chip for encapsulating said chip and not the
golden fingers area; wherein a cutting edge of the golden fingers area is
substantially aligned with a cutting edge of the base board.
25. A module card comprising a base board; a chip mounted on a surface of
said base board; a golden fingers area on said board electrically connected to
said chip, said golden fingers area insertable into a slot of a mainboard; and
a packing layer formed over said chip for encapsulating said chip but not the
golden fingers area; wherein a cutting-edge of the golden fingers area is
substantially aligned with a cutting edge of the base board and wherein a
cutting edge of the packing layer is substantially aligned with another cutting
edge of the base board.
26. A method of manufacturing a batch of module cards comprising steps
of: chip-on-board mounting a plurality of chips directly on a base board, at
least one chip of the plurality of chips being mounted within a respective
packing area of said base board, each respective packing area of said base
board having an associated, respective base board connector area, two
adjoining respective packing areas of said base board forming a pair of
packing areas across a respective first symmetrical line, two adjoining
respective base board connector areas forming a pair of base board
connector areas across a respective second symmetrical line; forming a
packing layer over the plurality of chips in all respective packing areas; and
forming individual ones of said batch of module cards by cutting the base
board at all symmetrical lines, wherein the base board connector areas
include elongated, golden connectors for electrically connecting to said
Appeal 2011-010571
Reexamination Control 95/000,099
Patent 6,565,008 B2
6
chips mounted within said respective packing areas and insertable into a slot
of a main-board.
ANALYSIS
1. Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) as enlarging the scope
of the claims being reexamined as compared to the original claims in the
‘008 patent, and under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as lacking written
description.
The thrust of both rejections is the same, with the Examiner finding
that the claim term “elongated golden connectors” is broader than the
original claim term “golden fingers” and “introduces a genus, whereas
before, a species was all that was disclosed” (Ans. 6-7). (See Ans. 5-7.)
The Examiner also reasons that the new term “elongated golden
connectors [lacks antecedent basis in the Specification and] includes within
its scope, gold pins, which is [sic, are] not within the scope of golden
fingers.” (Ans. 6.) Respondent essentially relies upon the Examiner’s
rationale. (See Resp. Br. 9-10.) Appellant disagrees with that rationale and
maintains that “elongated connectors” and “fingers” are synonymous. (App.
Br. 24.) Appellant points out that in the ‘008 patent, the fingers “must be
shaped and sized . . . to be inserted into the computer main board.” (App.
Br. 24 (citing col. 1, ll. 22-23.)) Appellant also points out that claim 26
requires the elongated connectors to be “insertable into a slot of a main-
board” (App. Br. 24) and argues that the phrase defines a structural
characteristic of golden fingers which are depicted as elongated in Figures 3
and 5 (App. Br. 25).
Neither Respondent nor the Examiner responds particularly to
Appellant’s argument that the fingers are originally depicted as elongated
Appeal 2011-010571
Reexamination Control 95/000,099
Patent 6,565,008 B2
7
and that the fingers and elongated connectors must be insertable into a slot
of a main-board. Appellant’s argument is persuasive.
The ‘008 patent originally supports the term “elongated connectors,”
since they must be “insertable into a slot of a main-board” according to new
claim 26; and therefore, they are structurally the same as or equivalent to the
fingers as originally described. It follows that the term “elongated golden
connectors” neither impermissibly broadens the original claims nor fails to
satisfy the written description requirement. See Application of Anderson,
471 F.2d 1237, 1244 (CCPA 1973) (“The question . . . is not whether
‘carrying’ was a word used in the specification as filed but whether there is
support in the specification for employment of the term in a claim; is the
concept of carrying present in the original disclosure?”)
2
Based on the foregoing discussion, the written description and
impermissible broadening rejections of claim 26 are not sustained.
2. Claims 6-8, 10, 20, and 23-25 rejected as anticipated under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) based on Lin ‘198.
3
Appellant argues that Lin ‘198 does not anticipate claim 6 because
Lin ‘198 must teach “a board where the respective symmetry arrangements
are true.” (App. Br. 28.) But as the Examiner finds, the argued elements in
product claim 6 directed to symmetry constitute product-by-process steps in
an intermediate product. (Ans. 23, 72) The final product, the module card
2
Respondent indicates at least partial acquiescence with our rationale: “If
the 35 U.S.C. 314(a) rejection is to be removed, the term ‘elongated golden
connectors’ of claim 26 must be given the same interpretation as ‘golden
fingers’ because the Patent Owner has explicitly admitted that the terms are
synonymous.” (Resp. Br. 9 n. 2.)
3
Lin et al., US 5,239,198 (Aug. 1993).
Appeal 2011-010571
Reexamination Control 95/000,099
Patent 6,565,008 B2
8
recited in claim 6, does not require any lines of symmetry. Based on the
foregoing discussion, the anticipation rejection of claims 6, and claims 7, 8,
10, 20, and 23 not separately argued, is sustained.
Appellant argues that claim 24 is patentable over Lin’ 198 because
Lin ‘198 does not disclose that “a cutting edge of the golden fingers area is
substantially aligned with a cutting edge of the based board.” (App. Br. 28.)
Appellant presents a similar argument for claim 25 and adds that Lin’ 198
fails to disclose the additional limitation of “a cutting edge of the packing
layer . . . substantially aligned with another cutting edge of the based board.”
(App. Br. 28.)
The Examiner reproduces Lin ‘198’s Figures 3, 8, and 10, and
identifies the claimed golden fingers, inter alia, as depicted traces 14, 16, 68,
and 76 (Ans. 25), and explains how those golden fingers either extend to the
edge of the board or substantially thereto (Ans. 29-30 (citing Lin ‘198
Figures 1-10 and col. 7, ll. 34-39)). The Examiner similarly explains how
the packing layer 72, 72’ is substantially aligned with the edge of the board.
(Ans. 30 (citing Lin ‘198 at Figs. 8-10.)
The Examiner further explains that the recited word “cutting” in
claims 24 and 25 constitutes a process step in device claims, and, as such, it
does not render the claimed products distinct over Lin’ 198 since the
modules there each have an edge corresponding to the recited cutting edge.
(Ans. 29-30.) Appellant’s counter arguments lack substance and do not
explain how the argued terms, i.e., “substantially aligned,” and “cutting,”
which are merely recited with a general denial, produce a distinct product.
(See App. Br. 28.) See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Circ. 2011)
(“Rule 41.37 . . . . requires[s] more substantive arguments than a mere
Appeal 2011-010571
Reexamination Control 95/000,099
Patent 6,565,008 B2
9
recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding
elements were not found in the prior art.”)
Moreover,“[w]here, as here, the claimed and prior art products are
identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or
substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove
that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the
characteristics of [the] claimed product.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255
(CCPA 1977); see also In re King, 801 F.2d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The Lin ‘198 figures and disclosures cited by the Examiner show
substantial alignment of the traces and packing layers with the base board
edge as the Examiner finds (see Ans. 22-30), and Appellant fails to explain
how the recitation of a “cutting-edge” or “cutting edge,” or any other
limitations, distinguish over the same or similar edges of the modules of
Lin ‘198. The Examiner also “[n]ote[d] that Patentee has the burden of
proof” for product-by-process limitations (Ans. 23; accord Resp. Br. 13)
and Appellant failed to meet that burden.
Based on the foregoing discussion, the anticipation rejection based on
Lin ‘198 of claims 24 and 25 is also sustained.
3. Claims 1, 2, 4, and 26 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
Lin ‘198 and Lee.
4
Appellant maintains that the combination is deficient because “neither
of the cited references provide any teaching or suggestion of . . . two
adjoining respective packing areas of the base board form[ing] a pair of
packing areas across a respective first symmetrical line, and two adjoining
4
Lee et al., US 6,323,064 B1 (Nov. 2001).
Appeal 2011-010571
Reexamination Control 95/000,099
Patent 6,565,008 B2
10
respective golden fingers (base board connector) areas form[ing] a pair of
golden fingers (base board connector) areas across a respective second
symmetrical line.” (App. Br. 30.)
This contention lacks merit for the reasons set forth by the Examiner.
As the Examiner explains, Lee discloses packing areas and golden finger
areas which are the same for each cut module, because “if one module were
cut out along the lines [of Lee’s Figure 7], it could be placed over any other
module and demonstrate identical ‘correspondence in size, shape and
relative position of parts on opposite sides of [any of the cut] lines.’”
(Ans. 74 (quoting a dictionary definition, citation omitted); accord Resp.
Br. 14.) In other words, the claims do not require “mirror symmetry”
(Ans. 74) of the packing or finger areas, and the Examiner’s Answer shows
that Lee teaches translational symmetry (see id. and Ans. 32-34), without a
persuasive rebuttal by Appellant.
The Examiner also explains that claim 1 requires “golden finger
areas,” as opposed to the golden fingers, to be formed and adjoined across a
second symmetrical line, and shows how Lee teaches, and renders obvious,
that limitation. (Ans. 34, 74-75.) Appellant fails to present persuasive
rebuttal to this rationale either.
5
In any event, making identical modules, as
Lee teaches, satisfies the argued claim elements directed to the symmetrical
lines because Lee’s identical modules, formed by cutting, exhibit
translational symmetry (see e.g. Lee Figs. 3-7 and 10) as the Examiner finds.
5
Appellant’s arguments directed to the long and short cut lines in Lee
(App. Br. 29-30) are addressed more fully below in sections 6 and 8 below
since Appellant’s arguments are essentially the same there as they are here.
Appeal 2011-010571
Reexamination Control 95/000,099
Patent 6,565,008 B2
11
Based on the foregoing discussion, the obviousness rejection based on
Lin ‘198 and Lee of claims 1, and claims 2, 4, and 26, not separately argued,
is sustained.
4. Claims 6, 8, 10, 20, 23, and 24 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based on Lin ‘178,
6
and either Lin ‘198 or admitted prior art (“APA”).
7
Appellant argues that Lin ‘178 does not render claim 6 obvious
because claim 6 must teach the symmetry lines recited in the intermediate
product-by-process step. (See App. Br. 30.) But as the Examiner finds, and
as discussed supra, product claim 6 does not require lines of symmetry to
exist in the claimed module card. (Ans. 37-40, 75.) As the Examiner also
notes and as also discussed supra, Appellant has the burden of proof to show
that any process steps render the claimed final product distinct over that of
the combination. (See Ans. 37.) Appellant has failed to set forth the
requisite showing. Based on the foregoing discussion, the rejection of
claims 6, and claims 8, 10, and 23 not separately argued, is sustained.
Appellant also asserts that “[c]laim 24 recites a cutting edge of a
golden fingers area that is substantially aligned with a cutting edge of the
based board. Lin ‘178 describes no such feature.” (App. Br. 31.) This
argument is similar to the argument presented for claim 25. It amounts to a
general denial lacking in substance and fails to show error in the Examiner’s
finding that Lin ‘178 shows that “golden finger areas are substantially
aligned with the edges of the board.” (See Ans. 38 (copying Fig. 3A of Lin
‘178); 41 (copying Fig. 2D of Lin ‘178 showing cut lines between modules);
42 (explaining that Fig. 3A of Lin ‘178 shows fingers 310 and the respective
6
Lin, 6,002,178 (Dec. 1999).
7
See supra P2 (admissions about prior art gold fingers in the ‘008 patent).
Appeal 2011-010571
Reexamination Control 95/000,099
Patent 6,565,008 B2
12
fingers area aligned with module card “cutting edges [which] are cut”); 75
(explaining that the ‘008 patent does not define “substantially aligned” but in
any case, Lin ‘178 shows the feature as it relates to golden fingers).)
Based on the foregoing discussion, the obviousness rejection based on
Lin ‘198 and either Lin ‘178 or APA of claims 6 and 24, and claims 8, 10,
20, and 23, not separately argued, is sustained.
5. Claims 7 and 25 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Lin ‘178
and Lin ‘198.
Appellant’s arguments track those presented for claim 6 (App. Br. 32)
and fail to show error in the rejection of claim 7 for the reasons discussed
supra. Appellant’s arguments for claim 25 track the arguments for claim 24
and lack substance because they amount to generally denying that the
combination shows the fingers and packing areas substantially aligned with
the board edge. Those arguments fail to show error in the Examiner’s
findings and rationale (Ans. 42-44) for reasons similar to those discussed
supra with respect to claim 24. Also, Appellant fails to address the
Examiner’s rationale for the obviousness of making the packing areas
substantially aligned with the edge of the board as claimed. (Ans. 44.)
Based on the foregoing discussion, the obviousness rejection of
claims 7 and 25 based on Lin ‘178 and Lin ‘198 is sustained.
6. Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 10, and 23-26 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based on Lee and APA.
Appellant acknowledges that the two respective adjoining packing
areas in Lee are symmetrical along the long cut lines 61 in Lee (App. Br. 32,
citing Fig. 10), but maintains that “two adjoining golden fingers areas would
not then be adjacent across the short cut lines” (App. Br. 32). That argument
Appeal 2011-010571
Reexamination Control 95/000,099
Patent 6,565,008 B2
13
is not commensurate with the scope of claim 6 which does not recite
symmetrical (i.e., short cut) lines in the final product as discussed supra.
Appellant’s arguments, taken here to be directed to claim 1 and
similar claim 26 (see App. Br. 33), directs attention to Figure 4 of Lee (id.)
and does not address the Examiner’s alternative finding based on Figure 5.
(See Ans. 48 (stating “Lee’s Figs. 4 and 5 show preferred arrangements for
the golden fingers”).) Figure 5 of Lee shows that the golden fingers areas
extend across the chip upon which the golden fingers 44a-44c rest. As such,
these areas (and the fingers) adjoin across either the long or short cut lines
61 (of symmetry) of Figure 10, contrary to arguments by Appellant (App.
Br. 32-33). And even if the golden fingers areas of Figure 4 do not adjoin
across the short cut lines 61, the fingers areas adjoin across the long cut lines
of symmetry and the packing areas adjoin across both the short and long cut
lines of symmetry as the Examiner finds (Ans. 48).
8
Appellant also argues that claims 24 and 25 are patentable over Lee
because “[t]he electrical connectors described by Lee are recessed from the
cutting edges of the modules.” (App. Br. 33.) Any such recess (see
e.g. Figs. 2A, 4, 5) constitutes “substantial” alignment where Appellant fails
to quantify the term. (Accord Ans. 76 (finding that “the ‘cutting edge’ is
taught in Lee” and that Lee discloses that the fingers and packing areas are
substantially aligned with such cutting edges).)
8
Appellant does not define what “adjoining” means but implies by the
argument quoted supra that it means “adjacent.” Based on Appellant’s
definition (by argument), Lee shows adjacent (adjoining) fingers and
packing areas where two packing and golden fingers areas are on side-by-
side (i.e., adjacent) modules. (See e.g., Lee Fig. 10.)
Appeal 2011-010571
Reexamination Control 95/000,099
Patent 6,565,008 B2
14
Based on the foregoing discussion, the obviousness rejection of
claims 1, 6, and 24-26, and claims 4, 7, 10, and 23 not separately argued,
based on Lee and APA, is sustained.
7. Claims 2, 8, and 20 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Lee,
APA, Lin ‘198, Dell,
9
and Ikeda ‘546
10,11
Appellant’s arguments focus on alleged shortcomings of Lee and rely
on the unavailing arguments discussed supra with respect to claims 1 and 6.
(App. Br. 33-34.) As such, the obviousness rejection of claims 2, 8, and 20
based on the above-listed references is sustained.
8. Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, and 26 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
Ikeda ‘546, Lee, and APA.
Appellant maintains that Lee fails to teach or suggest the symmetry
required by claim 1 and similar claim 26. (App. Br. 36.) Appellant points to
Figures 4 and 6 in Lee and refers to the golden fingers in Figure 4 and the
long and short cut lines (of symmetry) 61 in Figures 6 and 10. Appellant
reasons that that the golden fingers 44a, 44b, and 44c (see Fig. 4) would not
be “adjoining” across the longer cut lines 61 as depicted in Figure 6. (App.
Br. 36.) Appellant fails to explain why the golden finger areas are not
adjoining and does not address the Examiner’s findings with respect to Lee’s
Figure 5 as discussed supra. Appellant’s implicit argument may be that the
golden fingers themselves must extend across symmetrical lines for the
golden finger areas to be adjoining (see P4 supra (disclosing such an
embodiment)). But Appellant has failed to make that argument, thereby
9
Dell et al., US 5,513, 135 (Apr. 1996).
10
Ikeda US 6,208,546 B1 (Mar. 2001).
11
Appellant erroneously lists Brown in the rejection (App. Br. 33). (Accord
Ans. 53 and Resp. Br. 8.)
Appeal 2011-010571
Reexamination Control 95/000,099
Patent 6,565,008 B2
15
waiving it, especially where Appellant also implicitly argues for another
definition (see note 8 supra). “The problem in this case is that the appellants
failed to make their intended meaning explicitly clear.” In re Morris, 127
F.3d 1048, 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “It is the applicants’ burden to precisely
define the invention, not the PTO’s.” Id.
Further, the implied argument is unavailing, because claims 1 and 26
do not require the golden fingers themselves to extend across lines of
symmetry for the golden fingers areas to be adjoining.
12
As the Examiner
finds, and as discussed supra, placing one of Lee’s modules over the other
shows identical modules and hence symmetry. (Ans. 75-76.) The Examiner
explains why such symmetry would have been obvious. (Ans. 65.)
Appellant fails to persuasively explain why the Examiner’s findings and
rationale are in error.
Based on the foregoing discussion, the obviousness rejection based on
Ikeda ‘546, Lee, and APA of claims 1 and 26, and claims 2, 4, and 7 not
separately argued, is sustained.
9. Claims 6, 8, 10, 20 and 23-25 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
on Ikeda ‘546 and APA.
Appellant’s arguments for patentability of claim 6 are similar to
arguments discussed supra and are directed to process steps requiring
symmetrical lines in an intermediate product. (See App. Br. 35.) As also
explained supra, Appellant fails to present persuasive evidence or argument
showing that such process steps in claim 6 produce a finished product which
12
The word “across” is defined as “1. [o]n, at, or from the other side of
.” Webster’s II New Riverside Dictionary 75 (1984).
Appeal 2011-010571
Reexamination Control 95/000,099
Patent 6,565,008 B2
16
is patentably distinct over the product defined by the Examiner’s proposed
combination (see Ans. 54-61).
Similarly, with respect to claims 24 and 25, Appellant alleges that the
combination does not teach or suggest “a cutting edge of a golden fingers
area that is substantially aligned with a cutting edge of a base board.” (App.
Br. 35.) The Examiner persuasively shows that Ikeda 546’s fingers 8 in
Figure 3, as modified to include the APA known golden fingers, constitute
golden finger areas substantially aligned with a base board. (See Ans. 61.)
Appellant does not present persuasive argument showing that a “cutting”
edge produces a distinct or unobvious product over the distinct edges of the
boards in Ikeda ‘546. Moreover, skilled artisans, armed with common sense,
would have recognized that the Ikeda ‘546 boards (see e.g. Figs. 3, 4A)
would or could have been cut to size to produce the edges depicted there.
10. Claims 1, 6, 10, and 23-26 rejected as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based on Ikeda ‘026,
13
APA, and Brown.
14
Ikeda ‘026 discloses placing a packing layer (i.e., resin) 3 over
terminal areas 31, 32. (See Ikeda Fig. 7(a), 9(a); col. 5, ll. 48-55). The
parties agree that the terminal areas are covered by tape 33 prior to placing
the packing layer (i.e. resin) over the terminal area and then the tape (and
resin thereon) is removed. (See App. Br. 25-26, Resp. Br. 9-10; Ans. 9-10;
13
Ikeda et al., US 6,281,026 B1 (Aug. 2001) represents, according to the
Examiner, “the English language equivalent document of Ikeda-WO.”
(Ans. 7.)
14
Brown, US 4,502,098 (Feb. 1985). The Examiner styles two rejections
using Brown as 1) “evidenc[]” and also 2) listed more formally as an integral
part of the rejection. (See Ans. 4.) The two separately listed rejections are
considered here to be the same in the context of the arguments presented.
Appeal 2011-010571
Reexamination Control 95/000,099
Patent 6,565,008 B2
17
Ikeda Fig 9(b).) The Examiner refers to Ikeda ‘026’s terminals as the recited
“fingers” in claim 1, explaining that they “necessarily electrically connect to
the chips,” and employs the APA (P2) to show that making the fingers
“golden” as recited in claim 1 would have been obvious. (Ans. 10.)
Appellant asserts that Ikeda ‘026’s through-holes and corresponding
connectors thereto are not golden fingers insertable into a slot of a main
board. (App. Br. 25.) But Appellant does not explain why that assertion is
correct as Respondent points out (Resp. Br. 10), and the Examiner relies
further on Brown as evidence to show that similar “leadless” contacts are
insertable. (Ans. 11-12.) Moreover, the APA shows that such insertable
golden fingers were known. (P2.) Based on this record, the combination
shows the obviousness of insertable golden fingers (which Appellant equates
to the elongated golden connectors recited in claim 26, as discussed supra
and as Respondent points out (Resp. Br. 11)).
Appellant also argues that since resin is placed over the Ikeda ‘026
“fingers” (i.e., terminals) area, the combination fails to satisfy the claim 1
step of “forming a packing layer over [chips] . . . and not the golden fingers
area.” (See App. Br. 26). The Examiner reasons that claim 1 only precludes
a packing layer from remaining on the final product produced by the method
but does not preclude temporarily placing a packing layer over the golden
fingers area and then removing it as Ikeda ‘026 discloses. (See Ans. 69-70.)
Therefore, the issue presented here is: Does the claim 1 method step of
“forming a packing layer . . . not [over] . . . the golden fingers areas”
preclude temporarily placing a packing layer over the golden fingers area?
The ‘008 patent states that a “packing layer is formed on the packing
areas 21 and the chips 12” (P4), but it does not define what “formed” means,
Appeal 2011-010571
Reexamination Control 95/000,099
Patent 6,565,008 B2
18
and it does not describe, in particular (i.e., other than by inference, see
e.g., P4, Figures 2 and 3), the recited negative limitation of not forming a
packing layer on the golden fingers area. The ‘008 patent reasonably shows
that “forming” a packing layer is consistent with producing a permanent
packing layer over the chips. (See P1, P4.) Also, the ‘008 patent exhibits an
intent
not [to] be limited to the disclosed embodiments. On the
contrary, it is intended to cover various modifications and
similar arrangements included within the spirit and scope of
the appended claims which are to be accorded with the broadest
interpretation so as to encompass all such modifications and
similar structures.
(Col. 4, ll. 4-9 (emphasis added).)
Appellant does not direct attention to a definition of “forming” or
explain persuasively why the Ikeda ‘026 temporary tape layer does not
constitute a “similar arrangement” within the “spirit and scope” of the
claimed invention. The plain meaning of “form” connotes relative
permanency, as follows: “1.To give form to: SHAPE. 2. To shape or mold
into a particular form . . . . 3. To come to have, DEVELOP . . . . 4. To
constitute or be an element, part, or characteristic of . . . . 2. To come into
being: ARISE . . . .” Webster’s II New Riverside Dictionary 499 (1984).
15
In
Ikeda ‘026, as indicated supra, the resin is placed or poured over the tape
and then removed prior to (permanently) “forming” the resin as a part of the
module card. (See Ikeda ‘026, col. 5, ll. 47-65 and compare Fig 8 (final
15
Accord The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
http://www.xreferplus.com/entry/hmdictenglang/form (form means “[t]o
give form to; shape: form clay into figures.”).
Appeal 2011-010571
Reexamination Control 95/000,099
Patent 6,565,008 B2
19
product without tape) with Fig. 9 (showing tape).) Bolstering this plain
meaning of “forming” as connoting the forming of a permanent layer on the
module card is the final claim 1 phrase of “forming . . . module cards . . . by
cutting the base board at all symmetrical lines.”
As such, the open-ended claim (i.e., reciting “comprising”) reasonably
allows for the intermediate steps of placing a temporary packing layer over
the golden fingers area and then removing the temporary layer - thereby not
forming a (relatively permanent) packing layer over the golden fingers areas
as recited in claim 1. If claim 1 precludes placing a temporary packing layer
over the golden fingers area, and assuming arguendo the claims were
otherwise valid, a competitor could avoid infringement by simply
temporarily placing a removable piece of tape having resin thereon over the
golden fingers area of a final product (otherwise within the scope of claim 1)
for shipping purposes. As such, the Examiner’s position is persuasive
because allowing for such temporary placement would destroy the “spirit
and scope” of the disclosed and claimed invention.
In any case, the rejection is based on obviousness, not anticipation. If
the end result is that the golden finger area is not to be covered, one skilled
in the art would have readily understood that not covering the golden finger
area in the first place would be one way to optimize the process (for
example, to avoid wasting resin or to eliminate the removal step).
Appellant’s denial that Ikeda ‘026 fails to disclose an elongated
connector is short on substance (see App. Br. 27), fails to show error in the
Examiner’s rationale articulating otherwise (Ans. 71), and also does not
explain why such connectors would not have been obvious given the APA
(P2; Ans. 10 (relying on the APA to show gold for fingers was known)).
Appeal 2011-010571
Reexamination Control 95/000,099
Patent 6,565,008 B2
20
Pursuant to the foregoing discussion, the obviousness rejection based
on Ikeda ‘026, APA, and Brown of claim 1 is sustained as is the rejection of
claims 6 and 23-26 argued similarly and claim 10 not argued separately.
(See App. Br. 26.)
11. Claims 2, 8, and 20 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
Ikeda ‘026, APA, Brown, and either Lin ‘198 and Dell; and claims 4 and 7
as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Ikeda ‘026, APA, Brown, and
Lee.
Appellant does not present separate patentability arguments for these
claims, but relies on arguments presented for claims 1 and 6. (App. Br. 27.)
Based on the foregoing discussion, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 4,
7, 8, and 20 is sustained.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject appealed claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, 10, 20,
and 23-26 is affirmed.
Requests for extensions of time in this inter partes reexamination
proceeding are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.956. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.79.
AFFIRMED
Attachments:
Definition of “across”
Definition of “form:
ak
SNR Denton US, LLP
P.O. Box 061080
Chicago, IL 60606-1080
Appeal 2011-010571
Reexamination Control 95/000,099
Patent 6,565,008 B2
21
Third Party Requester:
Benjamin J. Hauptman
Lowe Hauptman & Berner, LLP
1700 Diagonal Road
Suite 300
Alexandria, VA 22314
Appeal 2011-010571
Reexamination Control 95/000,099
Patent 6,565,008 B2
22
TORCZON, Administrative Patent Judge, concurring.
While I join the majority's excellent opinion affirming the prior art
rejections, I cannot join the discussion of the written description and
broadening rejections for claim 26.
Appellant has inexplicably changed its terminology from "golden
fingers" to "elongated, golden connectors" for claim 26, but not for the other
independent claims. Appellant has not provided an adequate explanation of
the purpose of this change. By contrast, the Examiner has pointed out a
reasonable basis for interpreting the new terminology as broader than
"golden fingers". The Examiner offers the example of pins, but numerous
other examples would also be readily apparent to those skilled in the art.
Appellant argues, and the majority accepts, that the functional
limitation requiring that the connectors be "insertable into a slot of a main-
board" adequately limits the new terminology. Appellant does not point to
any definition in the Specification or any intrinsic or extrinsic evidence
defining "a slot of a main-board". Insertability of an electrical connector
into a receiving connector does not limit the scope of a connector much.
Similarly, a "slot" might have any number of meanings, including guide slot
for receiving one or more rows of pins into pin connectors.
16
Without
evidence of an art-recognized meaning, Appellant's argument is entitled to
little weight.
In sum, the Examiner has provided a reasonable basis for holding the
new terminology to be improper. Appellant has offered nothing but attorney
16
Such alternatives might have been obvious, but it is long-established that
obviousness cannot supply what the description lacks.
Appeal 2011-010571
Reexamination Control 95/000,099
Patent 6,565,008 B2
23
argument. Consequently, I would affirm the written description and
broadening rejections because Appellant has not shown reversible error.
WEBSTER'S ]I
New Riverside
University
Dictionary
III
. ..
iI t>,\.
. "
.. ,
, d ' .~
10 , >
,:-.
, (p
'<':t
74 7S acreage _ act:inic ray
very one man could plow in one day. The size of such a field was fixed
during medieval times at 4,840 square yards, wbicb is still the size of
does a modem acre. Old English reeer is descended from the same Indo·
, European form as Latin ager and Greek agro.!, which both mean
(Gk. 1 "field." The Modern English spelling comes from Old French acre,
relat· "i which is an alteration of the Latin form.
LOe· I "ere'age (.'~r·lj••'mil n. Area of land in acres.
19 or :~ "ere-foot (a'k~r·f60t') n. The volume of water, 43,560 cubic feet,
!lng a 1 that will cover an area of I acre to a depth of I foot.
lined. 1aoere-ineh (i'br·incb') n. One tWelftb of an acre· foot, equal to
nenrs. ,:A 3,630 cubic feet.
':l! ae·rid (,ilk'rid). ad;. [< Lat. acer, sbatp.] 1. Having a harsb taste or
'ji! smell. 2. CaUStiC In language or tone: AClUMONlOUS. -a-crid'i-tv
•f the i (a·kiid".t!), ac'riel·Il.... n. -ac'riel·IV adv.
., and 1It·rl·dine (ilk'rl·den') 11. A coal tar derivative, C • .H.N, tbat has a
equi· '.~ srrongly irritating odor and is used to make dyes and synthetics.
:lIlc'li·f1a·vine (ak'r~·f1.'ven', ·v!n) n. [ACRI(DlNE) + fLAVIN.) A
ltitic ~ brown or orange powder, C • .H,.NJCI, derived from acridine and used
Ition. .J as an antiseptic.
,n an :, ae'ri'mo'ni'ous (3k'r:!omO'nf·as) adj. Bitingly hostile in language
iQ {}J tone. -ac'ri~o'u.i·oua·ly adv. -ac/ri b. Height !. a. Tip: beginning b. Extremity of the body
p'd' ae'l'o'bat (ak'r;)-Wt') n. [Fr. acrobate < Gk. akrobatts < akroba·
tain, to walk on tiptoe : akros, high + boto.!, walker < bainein, to
QUO. walk.} One skilled in feats of agility and balance. _e'mobat'ic ad;.
ac -ac'ro·bat'l-c.Hy adv.
, to ac.....·bat-ics (~k·r~·bat'!ks) n. (sing. or pl. in number). 1. The ac·
-I!) n. (Fr. acromegalie : Gk. akron,
extremity + Gk. megas, big.] Pathological enlargement of the bones
of tbe bands, feet. and face, resulting from chronic overactivity of
tbe pituitary gland. -ac'm'IDeogal'ic:: (·mi·g;ll'!k) adj. &. n. me ae·ro·meHc (ak'ro·mfl'Ik) ad;. [ACRo- + Gk. melos, limb.) Of, Uy.
relating to, or pertinent to the end of the extremities.
a'cro'lDi'on (a·kra'me·an) n. [Ntat. < Gk. aRromion : Ilkrru, ex·
treme + Gmion. dim. of Gmos. sboulder.) Tbe outer extremity of the
scapula or shoulder blade. :< aC'ro'nym (ilk'TO·nim') n. A word formed from tbe initial letters of k.]
a name, as WAC for Women's Army Corps, Of by combining initial 'he
lat
letters or parts of a series of words, as radar for radio detecting and
ranging. -ac'ro-u}"%A"lc~ &'"eron'Y'DlOUIt (~kron'~-m~s) adj.
. to a"UOp'c-tal (a-Iallp'r·t!) ad!. Bot. Developing upward from the base
lao toward the apex" as some forms of inflorescence, __~c:rop~.-tal~ly
adv.n.
aC'I'O'Pho·bi·Q (ak'r:)ofo'M.~) n. Abnormal fear of beights. < a·crop'O·liII (;)-krop'••iIs) n. [Gk. aluopoli$ : akron, top + polis.
In~ City.) The fortified height Of citadel of an ancient Greek city, esp.
the Athenian citadel.
a' ac·ro-spire (iik'~splr') n. [Var. of dial. akerspire < ME: acher, ear
of grain « OE rel!ber) + spire. shoot < OF. spiro ) The initial sprout
fo
from a germinating grain seed.
a·cross (a·kros.', 3+kr6s') prep. (ME. llcrois <- AN an croiz : an, in +
crou, cross.} 1. On, at, or from the other side of
·n.
2. So as to cross: OVU. 1. From one
.s side of to the other
4.. Into contact with
\0 -adv. 1. From one side to the
p;.. other 2.. On or to the
of opposite side 3. Crossed: crosswise. 4.0ve!
Ie ll-cross-the-board (~.krOs'tb~·bOrd', ·bOrd', :l-krOS'·) ad;. 1. Desig·
:i· nating a racing wager wbereby equal amounts are bet on the same
s contestant to win, place, or show.!. Including all categories or memw
IS bers
It Ob boot oU out th thin th this ii cut fir urge y young
k yOb abuse zh vision 0 about, item. edible, gIlllop, circus
a'eros'tie (o·kr{)'stlk, .·krils'tlk) n. (Fr. acrostiche < OFr. < Gk.
akrostikhis : akron, end + stikhos, line.] 1. A poem or series of lines
in which certain letters, usu. the first in each Hne, form a name
j
motto, or message when read in sequence. 2. A word square. -a'
cros'de adj. _-er08'd-eaHy adv.
GRAB
RARE acrostic:
A word squareARTS
BEST
ac·ry·late resin also ae·ry-Iate (lk'r;)-l~t') n. Any of a class of
acrylic resins used in emulsion paints, .dhesives. plastics, and textile
and paper finishes.
a-eryHe (~.krn'!k) n. [ACll.(OLElN) + .YL + 'IC.] 1. Acrylic resin.
2. Acrylic fiber. 3. A paint containing acrylic resin. -a'cryl'ie adi.
acrylic acid n. A readily polymerized, colorless, corrosive liquid,
H1C:CHCOOH, used as a monomer for acrylate resins.
acrylic fiber n. A synthetic fiber polymerized from acrylonitrile.
acrylic resin n. Any of numerous thermoplastic or thermosetting
polymers or copolymers of acrylic acid, methacrylic acid, esters of
these acids, or acrylonitrile, used to produce synthetic rubbers and
lightWeight plastics.
acorr1o'Jli·trlle (iik'r~·lil·nl'tr~l, .trel', ·trIl) n. [ACRYL(IC RESIN)
+ NTI'lULE.] A colorless, liquid orgllnic compound, H2C:CHCN, used
to make acrylic rubber and fibers.
act (akt) n. [ME < OFr. aete < Lat. actus, a doing, and acrum. a thing
done, botb < agele, to do.] 1. The process of doing: ACTION. 2. Some.
thing done: DUD. 1. An enactment, as of a judicial or legislative
body. ., A formal written record of proceedings or transactions.
5. a. One of the major divisions of a play or opera. b. A theatrical
performance tbat forms part of a longer presentation. II. A manifesta.
tion of insincerity: POSt. usage: Act and action ale distinct in mean.
ing. An act is the deed accomplished by means of an acnon. Thus, a
baseball pitcher may throw with an unnatural action (ie .• a physical
movement difficult for tbe buman arm), a parent who abandons a
child performs an unnatural act (the deed, but not the series of
activities witb whicb it is performed, is contrary to human rutture).
-v. ac:toetl, act·lng. acts. -vt. 1. To assume the dramatic role of
2. To perform on the stage 3. To
behave like! IMPERSONATE •• To bebave as suit.
able for -vi. 1. To bebave or con·
duct oneself. 2. A. To perform in a dramatic role. b. To be suitable
for theatrical performance, as a given play or role. 3. To behave af.
fectedly: PIUTEND.•• To appear to be 5. To
take action II. To function Or serve 7. To take effect _ct on (or upoll).I. To act according to 2. To produce an effect on
-act out. 1. a. To perform in or as if in a play: Dll.AMA.TIZE h. To realize in action 2.. Psr'
choanal. To express (e.g., unconscious impulses) in an overt way
witbout understanding or awareness. -act up. To misbebave or
ma1.function. -llc/t.a*bil·i~y f1. -ac't'a-ble. adj,
Ac·tae·on (ak-te'~n) n [Lat. < Gk. AktaiO'l1.] Gk. Myth. A young
hunter wbo Was turned intO a stag by Artemis. wbom be bad seen
bathing, and who was killed by bis own dogs.
ACTB ( b. Containing directions for use in a dramatic performance.
-no 1. The occupation or performance of an actor. 2. Simulated be.
havior: PIUTENSt.
ac·tln-i·a (iik·tin'!·~) also ae-tin·i·a.n (·'\n) n.• pl. -i'ae (.;;.e·)
aLso -i·....... [NLat. Actinia. sea anemone genus < Gk. aktis, ray.] A
sea anemone or a related animal.
ac:·tin·ie (ak·tin'lk) ad;. Of or relating to actinism. _c'lin'i'ca!'
Iyadv.
actinic: ray n. Pbotocbemically active radiation.
/
!
/
"
Wor9s that are believed to be registered trademarks have
been checked with authoritative sources. No investigation
ha's been made of common-law trademark rights in any
,word, because such investigation is impracticable. Words
that are known to have current registrations are shown with
an initial capital and are also identified as trademarks. The
inclusion of any word in this Dictionary is not, however, an
expression of the Publisher's opinion as to whether or not it
is subject to proprietary rights. Indeed, no de6nition in this
Dictionary is to be regarded as affecting the validity of any
trademark.
Copyright © 1984 by Houghton Mifflin Company. All
rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced Or
transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or me
chanical, including photocopying and recording, or by any
information storage or retrieval system, except as may be
expressly permitted by the 1976 Copyright Act or in writing
by the Publisher.
All correspondence and inquiries should be directed to
Reference Division, Houghton Mifflin Company
One Beacon Street, Boston, MA 02108
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Main entry under title:
Webster'S n new Riverside university dictionary.
1. English language-Dictionaries. 1. Riverside Pub
lishing Company. II. Title: Webster's two new Riverside
university dictionary_ m. Title: Webster'S 2 new River
side univerSity dictionary.
PE162S.w244 1984 423 83-3799
ISBN: 0-39S·33957·X (thumb index, trade edition)
0-395-37928-8 (high school editionl
Manufactured in the United States of America
WEBSTER'Sn
NewRiverside
University
Dictionary
reD. 10;\ i- hoop, troop.] 1_ A hopeless or arduous underuking. 2. An
advanc.e guard of troops sent on a hazardous mission,
form (fOrm) n. [MEfoane < Lat. forma.11_ The shape and structtlre
01 somewing. 2. The body or ou""o,d appearance of • person Of
animal taken sep.uately from the face or bead: FIGURE. :t_ The es
stnce of something, 4. The mode in which a thing exists, acts, or
manifests itself: lUND S. Procedure as derer·
mined or governed by custom or legulation, 6.. Manners or conduct
as governed by decorum, etiquetre. or custom. 7. Performance con
,idered ",i,h regard to acknowledged criteria 8. Fitness. as of an animal. with regard to health or
training. ,. A fixed order of words or procedures, as in a ceremony,
10. A document with hianks for the insertion of details or informa·
non. lL Style or manner- of prt:!)cnting ideas or concepts in literary
01 musical composition or in organized discourse 11. The design. srructure, or panem of • work
of an <,ympnonic form> U. A mode! for making a mold. 14. A
ropy Qf tbe human ligare used for modeling clothes. IS. linotype
:!Sembled and locked up In a chase for printing. 1'. A grade in a
6ritisll school or in some U.s. private schools
11. a. A linguistic form. b. The external aspect of words with regard
. to their inflections. pronunciation. or spelling
18. Chiefly Brit. A bencb, III. A bare's resting place. -v. fOftDed,
: --In& ionns. -''/:. 1. To give form to: SHAPE. 1. To sbape or
, nrold into. given form. 1. To f.shion, train. or develop by instruc·
tlllO (jorm l child's mind> .tI. To come to have: D£Vf.LOP S. To constitute or be an element, part,
O! _barncteristic 01, 6. To develop mentally: CONCEIV'f. 7. a. To produce (e.g.. a tense) by assuming an inflection
b. To make (a word) by derivation or
;mnposirion. 8. To pur In order: AlUlANGl'.. -vi. 1. To become
ionnedo! shaped. 2. To come into being: AlUS"E. l. To assume a given
lhapt' or pattern. -form',,·bU'i·ty n, -form'a-blc ad!.
aving we form of
(fOrm.l) adi [ME < Lat. formalis < forma. shape.] 1. Relat·
IQ the outward aspect of something. 2. lleing or relating to essen·
form or con.ritution :t_ Adhering to
pttd form>, conventions, or regal.tions
by strict or meticulous observation of forms: METHODl·
f or cold 7. Having the outward
but lacking in substance
occasion requinng formal attire l esp. evening clothes,
attire -ior'm.tlnlJ. -mata. Computer Sci. To produce (e.g .•
in a speCified form.
. te (format') ". [FOlIM(IC ACID) + -An' 1 A ••t, M •••• - -,
form. • fort
of plant life> 4. Relating to the faern'ation or in..llcction of word,.
-D. The element of a word that is not contained ill the base and
gives tbe word a suitable form. -for'ma·tive·lv adv.
form class n. A set of linguistic forms whose exact substitutabiliry
in a given construction is determined by their common embudiment
01 one or more morphological or syntactic features.
form'er1 (f01'mor) n. One thar (arm•.
former! (f01'mar) adi. [ME. comp. of forme, first < OE forllUl.]
1. Happening earlier in time. 2. Coming hefore in phlec or Older.
l.lleing the first mentioned of two.
formerly (f01'm.r·IE) adv. At a former time: ONCE.
form'fit-ting (fOrm/flt'log) adj. Closely litted to thi: body.
formic (fllr'mlk) ad;. [< lat. formica. ant.l 1. Of or relating to
ants. 2. Of or derived from formic acid.
Pormi-c:a (f6r.mI'k.). A trademark for any of various higb·pre.'Sure
Illminated plastic sbeets of melamine and phenolic materi.ls used
esp. for chemical and heat-resistant surface._
formic: ac:id n. A colorless caustic fuming liquid, HCOOH, used in
dyeing and finishing rextile. and paper and in manufacttlring fumi·
gants, insecticides, and refrigerants.
fOl"mi-c:ary (f61'ml-ker'e) n., pl.•lc8. [Med. Lat, formicarium <
Lat. formica, ant-] A nest of ants.
formi'civ'O'roU8 (fI)r'mi·slv'~r·as) adj. [L.t. formica, ant -I- -vo·
ROUS.) Feeding on ants.
formi-u'ble (l61'm!·d3.b:ll) ad;. [OFr. < Lat. formidabilis < for·
midare, to fear < formido. fear.] 1. Arousing fear or dread. 2. Inspir
ing awe : ADM!P.AlIL! <. formidable mind> :t. Difficult to
overcome. defeat, or undertake: AWESOM£
-for'mi.....·bU·I..,l', for'mi·da·ble-ne.& n. -Eor'mi.....·bll' adv.
form-tess (f6rm'Us) ad!. 1. Having no specified form: SHAP£LP.s.s,
2. Lacking order -Ionn·le....·ll' adv. -fo:nn'1e...·n"".. n.
form letter n. A usu. impersonal letter in a standardized format,
sent to different people Or large numbers of people.
formu'la (fOr'my..b) n., pl. -..... or .llle (·In (Lat.. dim. of forma.
form.] 1. An established form of words or symbols for \lse in a cere
many or procedure. 2. A method of doing or treating something that
relies on an established. unconrrovcr.ial model or approach <. new
comedy that use. an old formula for laughs> 3. An utterance of
conventional notions or beliefs .•• Ctlem. a. A symholic represcnta
lion of the composition or the composition and SlNettlre of. chemi·
c.l compound. b. The chemical compound so represented. 5. A
prescription of ing)'edienrs in fixed proportion: RF.CIPE. 6. A liqUid
food prescribed for an infant and containing most required nutri·
ents. 7. A mathematical statement. esp. an equation. of a rule. princi·
pie. answer. or other logical relation. -ror'mu·Ia'Ic. (·m·ik) ad!.
-ior'mu-ta·i·.,...Nl' adv_
formu-la-rize (f6r'my..I..r1z') vt. -n_d, -m·ins. -m·C8. To
formulate. -t'o...mu·l....t·.....'.lo.. n.
formu'lary (i4lr'mya·ler'e) n., pl .•ie8. 1. A book of formulas. as
prayers. 2. A '!;ltement expre.sed in formulas. 3. A formula .•• A
book listing tbe names of pharmaceuticals and their applications.
formu-late (f6r'my,·!iit') vt. -lat·ed. -lo.t-ins. -law•. 1. To state
as a formula. 2. To express in systematic terms or concepts. 3. To
devise: invent 4. To prepare as per a
specified formula. -loJ"mu~lQ~do:Q D. -Eor'mu"lo'tor n
formula weipt n. Molecular weight.
formu'lize (fOr'my~·lIz') vt, .lized, .liz·lng, -liz'''''' To formu·
late. -for'mu·U·za6doD n, -for'm.u·lb:;'er n,
formyl (f6r'mil') n. [FOllM(IC ACID) + -YL.] The univalent radical
CHO.
l'ornax (fGr'naks') n. [Lat. fomax. furnace.] A constellation in the
Southern Hemisphere.
forw-c::ate (f01'nr·kat') vi. ·eat·cd, -cat·ins. -I:IlUS. [LLat. fonu·
cari. fOrnicat· < fornix, brothel.] To commit fornication. -fornl·
c"'torn.
fOl"w·c:a·tion (fOr'nr-U'shan) n. Sexual mtereO\1"e hctween a
man and Woman not married to each other.
fornix (f61'niks) n.. pI. -w..,,,,, (.nHoz') [Nlat. < lal.• vault.J
Antlt. Either of • pair of bands of white fibers beneath the corpus
callosum of the brain.
forsake (f6r-sak', far·) vt. ..oolt (-.60k'). -aak·eD (·sa·k~n). -....t.:.
iDg, ....ake.. (ME forsaken < 01: forsacan.] 1. To give UP:l\llNOUNCE
1. To leave altogether: ABANDON 