Ex Parte Cao et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 26, 2008

11025524 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 26, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte XISONG CAO,
WEN HE, and NICK LIN

Appeal 2008-5460
Application 11/025,524
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided: November 26, 2008
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHN A. JEFFERY,
and KARL D. EASTHOM, Administrative Patent Judges.

EASTHOM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2008-5460
Application 11/025,524

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s Final
Rejection of claims 1 through 7. No other claims are pending (App. Br. 4).1
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellants disclose and claim a land grid array connector for
electrically connecting an electronic package such as a chip 2 with a printed
circuit board. The connector comprises an insulative rectangular housing 10
and several terminals 11. First and second resilient arms, formed in
sidewalls of the housing, are capable of deformation in the sidewalls and
into the main housing cavity. The arms also have chamfered surfaces
formed in an upper edge for guiding insertion of the chip into the housing.
First and second guiding blocks are formed in the other sidewalls of the
housing. The arms exert a normal force against the chip to abut the chip
against the first and second guiding blocks (Spec. ¶¶ 0001, 0016-0019; Figs.
1, 2).
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows:
1. A land grid array connector for electrically connecting a first
electrical device and a second electrical device, the land grid array
connector comprising:

an integrally one piece insulative housing having a base and four
sidewalls extending upwardly from the base, the base and the
sidewalls cooperatively defining a central cavity for receiving the

1 The Examiner’s Answer (filed, October 11, 2007) (“Ans.”), and
Appellants’ Appeal Brief (filed, October 27, 2006) (“App. Br.”) and Reply
Brief (filed, December 11, 2007) (“Reply Br.”), are referenced in this
opinion.
Appeal 2008-5460
Application 11/025,524

3
first electrical device therein, the base defining a generally
rectangular array of passageways, at least one of the sidewalls
defining a resilient arm on an inner portion thereof and capable of
deformation in a positive space defined therein, at least one of the
rest sidewalls defining a pair of securing blocks extending from an
inner portion thereof into the central cavity, the securing block
defining a substantially securing vertical surface perpendicular to a
bottom surface of the base; and

a plurality of conductive terminals received in corresponding
passageways for electrically engaging with the first electrical
device and the second electrical device.

The Examiner relies on the following prior art reference to show
unpatentability:
McHugh US 6,699,047 B1 March 2, 2004

The Examiner rejected claims 1 through 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over McHugh.
ISSUE
Appellants contend that McHugh does not teach the securing blocks
as set forth in claims 1 and 6. (Reply Br. 2). Specifically, Appellants
contend that McHugh’s securing blocks 1140/1141 and 1150/1151 do not
have a securing surface perpendicular to the bottom surface of the base (id.).
Appellants also contend that McHugh’s resilient protrusions 1220 and 1230
are not urging devices as required by claim 6 (id.).
The issues are:
1. Does McHugh teach a securing block having a securing surface
perpendicular to the bottom surface of the base?
2. Do McHugh’s resilient protrusions perform urging?
Appeal 2008-5460
Application 11/025,524

4
FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
1. McHugh’s land grid array connector (LGA) comprises protrusions
1230 and 1220 extending vertically from, and perpendicular to, the LGA
base 124. The connector also comprises spring arm members 1140, 1141,
1150, 1151. The protrusions and spring arm members elastically deform
when an LGA chip 2 engages with the connector. (McHugh, col. 3, ll. 30-
41; col. 4, ll. 24-32; Figs. 1-4).
2. McHugh’s spring arm members appear chamfered or slanted, with
respect to the base 124, at a top edge of the spring arm ends where they first
engage and guide the LGA chip 2 (see Figs. 1-3). McHugh does not depict
the lower edge of the spring arm ends where they finally abut the inserted
chip 2 as it rests on the base 124 (see Fig. 3).
3. The Examiner found that McHugh’s spring arm members have
securing blocks at the end that have securing portions that extend
perpendicular to the base. (Ans. 4). On the other hand, the Examiner found
that a top edge of the spring arm member is chamfered (Ans. 5 – see the
Examiner’s claim 3 interpretation).
4. Appellants argue that McHugh’s spring arm members are
chamfered (i.e., slanted) at the top edges, citing the Examiner’s finding with
respect to claim 3 supra (see FF 3). (App. Br. 12-13).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“‘Our suggestion test is in actuality quite flexible and not only
permits, but requires, consideration of common knowledge and common
sense.’”
Appeal 2008-5460
Application 11/025,524

5
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1743 (2007)(quoting DyStar
Textifarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d
1356, 1367 (2006)).
“[W]hen a patent ‘simply arranges old elements with each performing
the same function it had been known to perform’ and yields no more than
one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious.”
Id., at 1740 (quoting Sakraida v. Ag. Pro., Inc., 96 S. Ct. 1532, 1537
(1976)).
ANALYSIS
With respect to the first issue, Appellants do not dispute with
specificity the Examiner’s general finding that McHugh’s securing blocks,
located on the ends of spring arms 1150/1151, each has some portion of a
securing surface that extends perpendicular to the housing base 124. As
indicated supra, Appellants merely state that a top portion of each securing
block is chamfered (i.e., slanted). Appellants also state that there is “no
meaningful planar surface shown thereof . . . perpendicular to the base”
(Reply Br. 2) (emphasis added). Appellants’ statements do not dispute
directly that the lower portion of the securing block surface is perpendicular
to the base.
Because Figures 1-3 of McHugh do not depict the lower surface
portions of the securing blocks, it follows that such lower surface portions –
those portions that abut the final resting place of the LGA chip 2 – are not
depicted as chamfered. Moreover, the lower portions appear to be
perpendicular where they abut the chip near the base 124, because the
Appeal 2008-5460
Application 11/025,524

6
depicted chamfered/slanted portion does not extend past the frame sidewalls
110-114 onto the base 124. (See McHugh, Figs. 1, 2, and 3, spring arms
1150, 1151, 1140, and 1141).
Logically, the chamfered/slanted upper securing block portions on the
spring arms guide the chip downward when the chip first slides into the
connector. Below that initial insertion, near the base 124, no need exists for
the chamfered portion to extend all the way along the spring arm securing
block to the base. To the contrary, continuing the chamfered portion
downward to the base, would, similar to a lever arm wedge, result in an
undesired upwards force on an inserted chip 2. Therefore, even if McHugh
does not specifically disclose a perpendicular securing face on the lower
portion of the spring arm securing block where it finally engages and secures
the chip, it would have been obvious to make that lower securing portion
perpendicular to the housing base 124 – to match and secure the similar
perpendicular face of the side edge of the chip portion 21. (See McHugh
Figs. 1 and 3). Common sense and knowledge informs a skilled artisan to
expect that such a perpendicular face, like the opposed perpendicular
protrusions 1220 and 1230, would secure the chip better than a slanted face.
See KSR, supra (common sense and knowledge required in flexible
suggestion test).
The Examiner’s cumulative finding that McHugh’s arcuate
protrusions 1220 and 1230 also constitute the claimed securing blocks (Final
Office Action, mailed February 21, 2006) is reasonable and factually
supported. Appellants’ argument that such arcuate protrusions define a
securing line, but not a securing surface, as claim 1 requires, lacks any
factual support. (App. Br. 11). The deformable protrusions necessarily form
Appeal 2008-5460
Application 11/025,524

7
a securing surface with the chip 2 as a result of a compressive force exerted
on the protrusions from the spring arms.
Similarly, with respect to the second issue, Appellants’ assertion that
the deformable protrusions do not urge the chip, and only the spring arms
urge the chip, lacks any factual foundation. (Reply Br. 2, 3). McHugh
clearly discloses that the arms and protrusions each deform and cooperate to
hold the chip securely therebetween. Such chip deformed protrusions
constitute resilient urging devices as required by claim 6.
Finally, Appellants do not seasonably challenge the Examiner’s
articulated reason (Ans. 4, 5), with which we concur, for modifying
McHugh’s frame 11 and housing 12 to form an integral one-piece housing as
required by claims 1 and 6. Appellants’ mere recitation of claim elements
(see App. Br. 10) does not constitute an argument for patentability.
Appellants apparently agree with at least a portion of the Examiner’s
rationale - that one-piece molding eases manufacturing. (See App. Br. 13).
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 7.

CONCLUSION
McHugh teaches a securing block having a securing surface
perpendicular to the bottom surface of the base. McHugh’s resilient
protrusions perform urging. Therefore, Appellants have not shown error in
the Examiner’s rejection of the claims.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 through 7 is affirmed.
Appeal 2008-5460
Application 11/025,524

8
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv)(2006).

AFFIRMED

KIS

WEI TE CHUNG
FOXCONN INTERNATIONAL, INC.
1650 MEMOREX DRIVE
SANTA CLARA, CA 95050