Ex parte Carter

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 25, 2001

09044629 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 25, 2001)

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for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 25
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte TROY CARTER
____________
Appeal No. 2001-2043
Application No. 09/044,629
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before COHEN, ABRAMS, and BAHR, Administrative Patent Judges.
COHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 9
through 15. These claims constitute all of the claims
remaining in the application.

Appellant's invention pertains to a method of inverting a
plurality of die-level carriers along a z-axis. A basic
understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading
Appeal No. 2001-2043
Application No. 09/044,629
2
of exemplary claims 9 and 15 which claims can be found in
Paper No. 23.
As evidence of obviousness, the examiner has applied the
documents listed below:
Jackson 3,191,791 Jun. 29, 1965
Boardman 5,492,223 Feb. 20, 1996
Shcherbin et al SU 1,537,459 Jan. 23, 1990
(Shcherbin)(Soviet Union)
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claims 9 through 11, 13, and 14 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Boardman.
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Boardman in view of Jackson.
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Boardman in view of the Soviet Union
reference.
Appeal No. 2001-2043
Application No. 09/044,629
In our evaluation of the applied prior art, we have1
considered all of the disclosure of each document for what it
would have fairly taught one of ordinary skill in the art.
See In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507, 510 (CCPA
1966). Additionally, this panel of the board has taken into
account not only the specific teachings, but also the
inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably have
been expected to draw from the disclosure. See In re Preda,
401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
3
The full text of the examiner's rejections and response
to the argument presented by appellant appears in the answer
(Paper No. 22), while the complete statement of appellant's
argument can be found in the main and reply briefs (Paper Nos.
19 and 23).

OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the issues raised in this
appeal, this panel of the board has carefully considered
appellant's specification and claims, the applied teachings,1
and the respective viewpoints of appellant and the examiner.
As a consequence of our review, we make the determinations
which follow.
Appeal No. 2001-2043
Application No. 09/044,629
4
We cannot sustain the examiner's respective rejections of
appellant's claims.
As explained in the specification (pages 4, 7 and 9), a
mated pair of die-level test and burn-in flipping trays is
inverted causing die-level carriers in pockets of the first
tray to transition under the influence of gravity to
corresponding pockets in the second tray in an orientation
inverted about the z-axis. Figs. 6 and 7 show a mated pair of
flipping trays, with Fig. 6 showing a phantom carrier 30 in a
lid down orientation, and Fig. 7 depicting the phantom carrier
30 in a lid up orientation. The specification (page 9) points
out that moving from Fig. 6 to Fig. 7 is merely a matter of
rotating or rolling the mated trays such that the top tray
becomes the bottom tray and vice versa.
Independent claim 9 specifies a method of inverting a
plurality of die-level carriers along a z-axis comprising,
inter alia, depositing the die-level carriers in a first
orientation in a plurality of pockets of a first tray, mating
a second tray with the first tray, and rotating the first and
Appeal No. 2001-2043
Application No. 09/044,629
5
second trays thereby depositing the die-level carriers into
the corresponding pockets in the second tray in a second
orientation.
Independent claim 15 sets forth a method of inverting a
plurality of electronic components along a z-axis comprising,
inter alia, depositing the electronic components in a first
orientation in a plurality of pockets of a first tray, mating
a second tray with the first tray, and rotating the first and
second trays, wherein during rotation the electronic
components translate through a distance along the z-axis
thereby being deposited into the corresponding pockets in the
second tray in a second orientation.
In each of the examiner's rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a), the Boardman document is the basic reference. A
reading of the Boardman disclosure reveals to us that one
having ordinary skill in this art would readily appreciate
that the patentee intended for semiconductor devices to be
effectively captured between two capable alignment and
retention systems (column 5, lines 19 through 21) such that
Appeal No. 2001-2043
Application No. 09/044,629
6
the devices would be effectively prevented from being
displaced from the cells if the trays were subjected to shock
and vibration (column 5, lines 41 through 44).
As clearly evident from the Boardman patent, the patentee
configured the disclosed invertible trays such that no
movement of the semiconductor devices was intended to take
place. On the other hand, appellant's method requires that
die-level carriers or electronic components transition or move
by virtue of the depositing of the carriers or components in
pockets of a first orientation in a first tray and a
depositing of the carriers or components into pockets of a
second tray after the rotation of the first and second trays.
Thus, the Boardman teaching is significantly different from
the method of appellant's claims 9 and 15.
The Soviet Union reference addresses the reorientation of
stepped components (see single figure of drawings) such that
the components are shifted or transferred out of the sockets
of one cassette into the socket of another cassette when a
package of the cassettes is turned around a horizontal axis
Appeal No. 2001-2043
Application No. 09/044,629
7
through an angle of 180°. However, as we see it, this latter
teaching, considered in conjunction with the overall teaching
of Boardman reference, would clearly not have motivated one
having ordinary skill in the art to modify the Boardman patent
since to do so would obviously destroy Boardman's objective of
semiconductor device capture and retention.
The brief does not discuss the Jackson document, applied
with the Boardman teaching in the separate rejection of
dependent claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Suffice it to
say that we readily discern that the Jackson reference does
not cure the deficiency of the Boardman disclosure, as focused
upon, supra.
In summary, this panel of the board has not sustained any
of the rejections on appeal.
Appeal No. 2001-2043
Application No. 09/044,629
8

The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
IRWIN CHARLES COHEN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
NEAL E. ABRAMS ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
)
JENNIFER D. BAHR )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2001-2043
Application No. 09/044,629
9
ICC:lbg
Appeal No. 2001-2043
Application No. 09/044,629
10
THOMAS M. COESTER
BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN
12400 WILSHIRE BLVD 7TH FLOOR
LOS ANGELES, CA 90025
APPEAL NO. 2001-2043 - JUDGE
COHEN
APPLICATION NO. 09/044,629
APJ COHEN
APJ BAHR
APJ ABRAMS
DECISION:
Prepared By:
DRAFT TYPED: 13 Jun 02
FINAL TYPED: