Ex Parte BOLL et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 13, 2002

08764353 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 13, 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for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 27
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte HARRY J. BOLL and GREGORY G. BOLL
____________
Appeal No. 2000-2053
Application No. 08/764,353
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before KRASS, LALL, and GROSS, Administrative Patent Judges.
LALL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-4, and 17, all the
pending claims in the application.
According to Appellants (brief at pages 1 and 2), the
disclosed invention pertains to a probe card for high speed
testing. This testing involves the testing of integrated
circuits (IC’s), also called chips or wafers. If the testing
shows that the design or the process employed to manufacture the
Appeal No. 2000-2053
Application No. 08/764,353
1 U.S. Patent to D’Souza (5,323,107) which was used in the
final rejection is apparently withdrawn from rejection in the
Examiner’s answer, see answer at page 3.
2
chip is faulty then the design or manufacturing process can be
altered to produce the desired results.
The following claim further illustrates the invention.
1. An electronic probe apparatus for testing an electronic
circuit comprising an array of probe wires having tip ends
adapted to contact said electronic circuit, said probe wires
extend outward from said tip ends and extend into an epoxy
material and are held in place therein, said epoxy material has
an electrically insulating surface and has electronic components
mounted on said insulating surface, connections are being made
between said components and said probe wires by electrically
conducting lines formed on said insulating surface of said epoxy
material, said connections are being made between said conducting
lines and said probe wires between said tip ends and said epoxy
material.
The Examiner relies on the following reference:
Cherry1 4,780,670 Oct. 25, 1988
Claims 1-4 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Cherry.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, we make reference to the brief (paper no. 25, labeled
as the supplemental appeal brief, which is the same brief as
paper no. 21 labeled as the appeal brief except for formalities)
and the answer (paper no. 22) for the respective details thereof.
Appeal No. 2000-2053
Application No. 08/764,353
3
OPINION
We have considered the rejections advanced by the Examiner
and the supporting arguments. We have, likewise, reviewed the
Appellants’ arguments set forth in the brief.
We reverse.
We consider independent claim 17 which is similar to, but
slightly broader than the independent claim 1. In response to
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 17 (answer at pages 3 and 4),
Appellants argue (brief at page 7) that:
The examiner has taken the position that the total of
the circuit board 50 an the probe card 72 mounted
thereon is to be taken as a large probe card. A fair
reading of the specification of Cherry will prove that
this is not true. The examiner...finds [in Cherry]
electronic elements mounted on the probe card while in
fact they are mounted on the circuit board 50 not probe
ring 72 (probe card).
The Examiner responds (answer at page 4) that “[a]pplicants’
definition of ‘a probe card’ is different from one of ordinary
[skill] in the art. ... The combinations of the printed circuit
board (50), the probe wires (54) and conductive lines or traces
on the printed circuit are truly a probe card.”
We direct our attention to the interpretation of the claim
because “[t]he name of the game is the claim.” In re Hiniker
Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Appeal No. 2000-2053
Application No. 08/764,353
4
Claims will be given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification, and limitations appearing in
the specification are not to be read into the claims. In re
Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 858, 225 USPQ 1, 5 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the instant case, looking at Figures 1 and 2 of Cherry,
we find that the probe wires 74 are “held in place” in epoxy ring
72 which corresponds to probe wires 31 “held in place” in epoxy
13 having insulating surface 13a in Figures 4 and 5 of the
Appellants’ disclosure. Therefore, even though an artisan might
look at element 50b and element 72 in Figure 1 of Cherry as an
epoxy material recited in the claim, the artisan must conclude
from the recitation “probe wires...held in place therein” in
claim 17 that the epoxy material defined by element 72 in Cherry
corresponds to there cited epoxy material in claim 17. Keeping
this in mind, we also find that Cherry does not meet the recited
limitation, “additional connections are being made between said
conducting lines and said probe wires between said tip ends and
said epoxy material” (claim 17). Consequently, we find that
Cherry does not meet the limitations of claim 17. Since claim 1
and its dependent claims 2-4 contain further limitations than
claim 17, we also do not sustain the rejection of these claims
over Cherry.
Appeal No. 2000-2053
Application No. 08/764,353
5
The decision of the Examiner under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
reversed.
REVERSED
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
PARSHOTAM S. LALL ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
PSL/jrg
Appeal No. 2000-2053
Application No. 08/764,353
6
WERNER H. SCHROEDER
PO BOX 10958
NAPLES, FL 34101