Ex Parte Hellriegel et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 21, 2008

10012210 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 21, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte STEPHEN V.R. HELLRIEGEL
and ALEXANDER I. YATSKOV
____________

Appeal 2008-1181
Application 10/012,210
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided: April 21, 2008
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, THOMAS A. WALTZ, and
ROMULO H. DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-21. Claim 1 is
illustrative:
1. A device configured to electrically connect first and second circuit
boards, comprising:

a flexible substrate;

Appeal 2008-1181
Application 10/012,210

a plurality of contact pads on a first surface of the substrate configured
to make electrical contact with contact pads of the first circuit board; and

a strain relief structure, positioned between two of the plurality of
contact pads.

The Examiner relies upon the following references in the rejection of
the appealed claims:
Furnival 3,977,074 Aug. 31, 1976
Markovich 6,291,776 B1 Sep. 18, 2001

Appellants' claimed invention is directed to a device used to
electrically connect first and second circuit boards, and the method for
making the device. The device comprises a plurality of contact pads on a
surface of a flexible substrate and a strain relief structure located between
two of the contacts pads. The relief structure may be an aperture or a thin
region of the flexible substrate.
Appealed claims 1, 2, 4, and 6-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Markovich. Claims 3 and 5 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Markovich in view of
Furnival.1
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants' arguments for
patentability. However, we find that the Examiner's rejections are well
founded and supported by the prior art evidence relied upon. Accordingly,

1 As noted in Appellants' Reply Brief, the Examiner's Answer does not
include the Final Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
description requirement. Since the Examiner simply noted Appellants'
Reply Brief, we will proceed on the basis that the Examiner has withdrawn
the Final Rejection under § 112, first paragraph.
2
Appeal 2008-1181
Application 10/012,210

we will sustain the Examiner's rejections for essentially those reasons
expressed in the Answer.
We consider first the Examiner's § 102 rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, and
6-17. We fully concur with the Examiner that Markovich describes the
claimed device comprising a plurality of contact pads on a flexible substrate
and a strain relief structure, an aperture, between the plurality of contact
pads. Not only do the plated through-holes (PTH) of Markovich meet the
structural requirement of the claimed strain relief structure but, as pointed
out by the Examiner, the PTH of Markovich result in the reduction of
stresses and strains (col. 3, first para.). As for the claimed flexible substrate,
we agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
gleaned that the organic laminate described by Markovich is flexible, at least
to the unspecified degree claimed. Appellants' reliance on Furnival's
preference for a rigid variety of a printed circuit substrate is of no avail. In
as much as a preference for a rigid substrate is tantamount to teaching that a
flexible substrate may also be used, we find that one of ordinary skill in the
art would consider that the organic laminate of Markovich can be either
flexible or rigid. Manifestly, a prior art disclosure of a term that includes
only two embodiments is a fair description of both embodiments within the
meaning of § 102.
Appellants maintain that "Markovich fails to teach any feature
configured to make electrical contact with a circuit board" (Principal Br. 15,
second para.). However, Markovich expressly teaches that chip carriers of
the type disclosed comprising organic laminates with PTH "provide for
electrical interconnections between different printed circuit layers" (col. 1,
ll. 12-13). Furthermore, it is not apparent how the recited intended use
3
Appeal 2008-1181
Application 10/012,210

"configured to electrically connect first and second circuit boards" defines a
structural feature that is not present in the laminate of Markovich. We
perceive no meaningful distinction between devices (claim 1) and electrical
connectors (claim 9) within the scope of the appealed claims and the organic
laminates fairly described by Markovich which provide electrical
interconnections between printed circuit layers.
We also do not subscribe to Appellants' reasoning that the PTH of
Markovich are not strain relief structures since they are, assuredly, a source
of strain and deformation (Principal Br. 17, second para.). Markovich, as
stated above, specifically teaches that the PTH, when properly located,
provide a reduction of stress and strains. Hence, any structural distinction
between the claimed apertures and the apertures of Markovich escapes us.
Also, we note that Markovich teaches that it was known in the art to use
recesses and apertures to relieve stress in electrical connecting substrates
(col. 1, l. 48 et seq.).
Concerning separately argued claim 4 which defines the relief
structure as a thin region of the flexible substrate, we find that the apertures
of Markovich's PTH is the ultimate thinned region of the substrate. Also, we
agree with the Examiner that Figures 4b and 5b of the reference depict a thin
region at the site of the aperture. The fact that the figures depict the
structure after reflow is of no consequence with respect to meeting the
requirements of the claimed device.
We further agree with the Examiner that Markovich describes
electrical traces that are capable of placing the contact pads in electrical
contact with a second circuit board. In addition, we concur with the
Examiner that Markovich describes an aperture of a PTH that electrically
4
Appeal 2008-1181
Application 10/012,210

interrupts an electrical trace, as set forth in claim 8. It is of no moment, as
argued by Appellants, that the PTH are electrically conductive insofar as all
that is required is that the aperture interrupt the extension of the electrical
trace.
Concerning the § 103 rejection of claim 3 and 5 which recite that the
aperture has, in plan view, a rectangular shape, we agree with the Examiner
that Furnival evidences the obviousness of using a rectangular shape for the
apertures of Markovich. Moreover, it is well settled that where patentability
is predicated upon a change in shape, configuration, concentration or the
like, the burden is on the applicant to establish with objective evidence that
the change is critical, i.e., it leads to a new, unexpected result. In re
Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Ranier, 377 F.2d
1006, 1010 (CCPA 1967); In re Bourden, 240 F.2d 358, 361 (CCPA 1957);
In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955). In the present case, Appellants
have proffered no objective evidence which demonstrates that the particular
shape of the aperture, being it rectangular or otherwise, produces unexpected
results.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons set forth by the
Examiner, the Examiner's decision rejecting the appealed claims is affirmed.
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)(effective
Sept. 13, 2004).
AFFIRMED

cam
5
Appeal 2008-1181
Application 10/012,210

SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC
701 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 5400
SEATTLE, WA 98104

6