Ex Parte Bayot

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 5, 2009

09963493 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 5, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte ARTHUR ALLAN BAYOT
_____________

Appeal 2009-003810
Application 09/963,493
Technology Center 2800
______________

Decided: August 5, 2009
_______________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and CARL W.
WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-003810
Application 09/963,493
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) of the final
rejection of claims 1 through 5 and 12 through 16.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.

INVENTION
The invention is directed towards a method for manufacturing a ball
grid array package. See page 2 of Appellant’s Specification. Claim 1 is
representative of the invention and reproduced below:
1. A method of manufacturing a ball grid array semiconductor
package comprising the steps of:
providing a substrate, wherein said substrate comprises a first
surface and a second surface and said first surface or said second
surface comprises a conductor pattern;
providing a plurality of conductive bump contact areas on said
first surface of said substrate;
substantially aligning each of said conductive bump contact
areas with at least one conductive bump, wherein the step of
substantially aligning said conductive bump contact areas with at least
one of said conductive bumps comprises the step of vibrating at least a
portion of said substrate, wherein said vibration of at least a portion of
said substrate substantially aligns each of said conductive bump
contact areas with at least one of said conductive bumps; and
disposing at least one of said conductor bumps on each of said
conductive bump contact areas.

REFERENCES
Kuroda US 5,205,032 Apr. 27, 1993
Chapman US 6,059,172 May 9, 2000

2

Appeal 2009-003810
Application 09/963,493

REJECTION AT ISSUE
Claims 1 and 12 are rejected by the Examiner under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Chapman. The Examiner’s rejection is on
pages 4 and 5 of the Answer.1
Claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 13, 14, 15, and 16 are rejected by the Examiner
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chapman in view of
Kuroda. The Examiner’s rejection is on pages 6 and 7 of the Answer.
ISSUE
Appellant argues, on page 5 of the Brief2 that the rejections of claims
1 through 5 and 12 through 16 are in error. Appellant argues:

Chapman discloses a [sic, in] column 2, line 16 [sic, 26]
different methods including vibration brushing and vacuum.
The present invention discloses vibration in a specific context
namely alignment and this context is not mentioned from the above
reference.
Brief 5.

Thus, Appellant’s contention presents us with the issue: has Appellant
shown that the Examiner erred in finding that Chapman teaches a step of
aligning conductive bump contact areas with conductive bumps by vibrating
a substrate as recited in claims 1 and 12?

1 Throughout the opinion, we make reference to the Answer, mailed
February 14, 2006 for the respective details thereof.
2 Throughout the opinion, we make reference to the Brief dated May 24,
2004 for the respective details thereof
3

Appeal 2009-003810
Application 09/963,493
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
In analyzing the scope of the claim, Office personnel must rely on
Appellant’s disclosure to properly determine the meaning of the terms used
in the claims. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 980
(Fed. Cir. 1995). “[I]nterpreting what is meant by a word in a claim is not to
be confused with adding an extraneous limitation appearing in the
specification, which is improper.” In re Cruciferous Sprout Litigation, 301
F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (emphasis in original; citations and
quotations omitted).

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Chapman teaches that it was known to use solder balls to mount two
electronic structures together. Col. 1, ll. 58-60.
2. Chapman teaches that solder balls are difficult to align and that
several methods are used to align them including using vibration.
Col. 2, ll. 25-29.

ANALYSIS
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that
Chapman teaches a step of aligning conductive bump contact areas with
conductive bumps by vibrating a substrate as recited in claims 1 and 12.
Claim 1 recites a step of “substantially aligning said conductive bump
contact areas with at least one of said conductive bumps comprises the step
of vibrating …. wherein said vibration of at least a portion of the substrate
substantially aligns each of said conductive bump contact areas with at least
one of said conductive bumps.” Independent claim 12 includes a similar
4

Appeal 2009-003810
Application 09/963,493
limitation. Thus, the scope of claims 1 and 12 includes that a substrate is
vibrated to align the conductive bumps with conductive bump contact areas.
The Examiner has found that Chapman teaches vibrating the substrate
with solder balls (conductive bumps) to align the bumps with contact areas
on another component. Answer 5. We find ample evidence to support this
assertion. Facts 1 and 2. Appellant’s arguments admit that Chapman uses
vibration. Brief 5. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the
claims differ from Chapman in that they are directed to using vibration for
alignment. While we concur that the claims recite that the vibration is used
for alignment, we also find that Chapman discloses that alignment is a
problem and vibration is used to solve the problem. Fact 2. Accordingly,
Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
by Chapman.
Appellant further argues that Kuroda does not cure the deficiency
noted in Chapman. Kurodra was not applied in the rejection of claims 1 and
12. As Kuroda is only applied in the rejection of claims 2 through 5 and 13
through 16, and Appellant’s have not persuaded us of a deficiency in the
Examiner’s findings regarding Chapman, we also sustain the Examiner’s
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 13, 14, 15, and 16 as
being unpatentable over Chapman in view of Kuroda.

SUMMARY
In summary, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 through
5 and 12 through 16.
5

Appeal 2009-003810
Application 09/963,493
ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 5 and 12
through 16 is affirmed.
No period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

ELD

TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED
P O BOX 655474, M/S 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
6