Ex Parte Barrow

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 11, 2002

08873973 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 11, 2002)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 19
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte MICHAEL BARROW
____________
Appeal No. 2000-0708
Application No. 08/873,973
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before RUGGIERO, GROSS, and BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent
Judges.
GROSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final
rejection of claims 1 through 18, which are all of the claims
pending in this application.
Appellant's invention relates to a printed circuit board for
a ball grid array integrated circuit package. In particular, the
printed circuit board includes a conductive plane and a solder
mask that covers the conductive plane and that has openings
exposing contact pad areas of the conductive plane. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the claimed invention, and it reads as follows:
1. A printed circuit board for a ball grid array
integrated circuit package, comprising:
Appeal No. 2000-0708
Application No. 08/873,973
2
a substrate which has a first outer conductive plane on a
top surface of said substrate; and
a solder mask that covers said first outer conductive plane
and which has a plurality of openings that expose a plurality of
contact pad areas of said first outer conductive plane.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Lin et al. (Lin) 5,216,278 Jun. 01, 1993
Frankeny et al. (Frankeny) 5,691,041 Nov. 25, 1997
(filed Sep. 29, 1995)
Claims 1 through 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Frankeny in view of Lin.
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 18,
mailed August 26, 1999) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejection, and to appellant's Brief (Paper No. 17,
filed June 4, 1999) for appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior
art references, and the respective positions articulated by
appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 18.
Each of independent claims 1, 9, and 17 recites "a first
outer conductive plane" on a top surface of the substrate of the
printed circuit board. Appellant's sole argument regarding
claims 1, 9, 17, and dependent claims 3 through 7, 11, 13, and 18
(Brief, pages 7-8) is that Frankeny, Lin, and the combination
Appeal No. 2000-0708
Application No. 08/873,973
3
thereof fail to teach the claimed first outer conductive plane.
The examiner counters (Answer, page 4) by restating a portion of
the rejection, "Frankeny clearly discloses a printed circuit
board and an electronic assembly having all of the features
claimed except for the use of solder mask." The examiner fails
to provide any specific citations in either Frankeny or Lin
showing the claimed conductive plane, and yet concludes that the
claimed element is "clearly disclose[d]" by Frankeny. Such an
answer, merely restating the rejection with no evidence to
support the statement, is an inadequate response to appellant's
argument.
We find no conductive plane in Frankeny. As indicated by
appellant (Brief, page 8), both Frankeny and Lin disclose
"individual discrete surface pads," not a conductive plane.
Specifically, Frankeny shows in Figures 2, 3, and 7, an
insulative body 4 with dendrite plated vias/pads 6 which are all
isolated from one another, and Lin discloses (column 4, lines 23-
27, and column 4, line 55-column 5, line 23) connecting the
electronic component 18 to a land arrangement, land layout, or
land configuration on the surface of the PCB. Nowhere does
Frankeny or Lin teach or suggest forming a conductive plane on
the surface of the printed circuit board. Therefore, the
examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
Appeal No. 2000-0708
Application No. 08/873,973
4
obviousness, and we cannot sustain the obviousness rejection of
claims 1, 3 through 7, 9, 11, 13, 17, and 18.
Claims 2, 8, 10, 12, and 14 through 16 depend from claims 1
and 9 and are, therefore, non-obvious over Frankeny in view of
Lin for the same reasons discussed supra. However, claims 2, 8,
10, 12, and 14 through 16 further recite that the substrate
includes an adhesion opening that is covered by the solder mask.
Appellant (Brief, page 8) argues that the proposed combination of
Frankeny and Lin further lacks this additional limitation. Again
the examiner fails to respond with any specific teachings in the
references. Instead, the examiner clings to language in
appellant's explanation of the importance of such adhesion
openings, stating that "the features upon which appellant relies
... are not recited in the rejected claim(s)." As the examiner
has directed us to no specific disclosure of adhesion openings,
and we find none of our own accord, we cannot sustain the
obviousness rejection of claims 2, 8, 10, 12, and 14 through 16,
as the references lack the extra claim limitation of adhesion
openings.
Appeal No. 2000-0708
Application No. 08/873,973
5
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 18
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2000-0708
Application No. 08/873,973
6
BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN
12400 WILSHIRE BLVD
7TH FLOOR
LOS ANGELES, CA 90025