Ex Parte Jamieson

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 6, 2011

09789401 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 6, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
09/789,401 02/20/2001 Mark P. Jamieson 42390.P10980 7860
45209 7590 09/06/2011
MISSION/BSTZ
BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP
1279 OAKMEAD PARKWAY
SUNNYVALE, CA 94085-4040
EXAMINER
WARREN, MATTHEW E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2815
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/06/2011 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte MARK P. JAMIESON
_____________

Appeal 2009-012136
Application 09/789,401
Technology Center 2800
______________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and CARLA M.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 42 through 67.
We reverse.

Appeal 2009-012136
Application 09/789,401

2

INVENTION
The invention is directed to an interconnect for routing signals
through a multi-layer board. Claim 42 is representative of the invention and
is reproduced below:
42. An apparatus comprising:

a structural layer having an upper interconnect layer
overlying a side thereof and a lower interconnect layer
overlying an opposing side thereof;

a plurality of signal connectors formed in the upper
interconnect layer and arranged to couple with a plurality of
leads of a die, a number of the signal connectors comprising a
spline, each signal connector of the spline located adjacent to at
least one other signal connector of the spline;

a first row of riser vias and a second row of riser vias
formed in the structural layer, each riser via of the first and
second rows located outward of the plurality of signal
connectors, a riser via of the first row and an adjacent riser via
of the second row comprising a riser group associated with the
spline;

a number of other vias formed in the structural layer,
each of the other vias located in a region underlying the
plurality of signal connectors;

a number of signal traces formed in the upper
interconnect layer, a first of the upper interconnect layer signal
traces coupled with a first signal connector of the spline and a
second of the upper interconnect layer signal traces coupled
with a second signal connector of the spline, the first and
second upper interconnect layer signal traces extending
outwardly from the spline and between the riser group and a
directly adjacent riser group; and

Appeal 2009-012136
Application 09/789,401

3

a number of signal traces formed in the lower
interconnect layer, a first of the lower interconnect layer signal
traces coupled by a first of the other vias with a third signal
connector of the spline and further coupled with a first riser via
of the riser group, a second of the lower interconnect layer
signal traces coupled by a second of the other vias with a fourth
signal connector of the spline and further coupled with a second
riser via of the riser group;

wherein the first and second riser vias of the riser group
route the first and second lower interconnect layer signal traces
to the upper interconnect layer, and wherein a third and fourth
of the upper interconnect layer signal traces are coupled with
the first and second riser vias, respectively, and extend
outwardly from the riser group and adjacent to the first and
second upper interconnect layer signal traces.

REFERENCES
Barber 5,741,726 Apr. 21, 1998
Katz 6,310,398 B1 Oct. 30, 2001

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 42 through 46, 48 through 53, 55
through 59, and 61 through 66 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Applicant’s Prior Art Figures 1 and 2, and Katz. The
Examiner’s rejection is on pages 3 through 5 of the Answer. 1
The Examiner has rejected claims 47, 54, 60, and 67 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Applicant’s Prior Art Figures 1 and 2,
Katz and Barber. The Examiner’s rejection is on pages 5 and 6 of the
Answer.

1 Throughout this decision we refer to the Answer dated March 11, 2008.
Appeal 2009-012136
Application 09/789,401

4

ISSUE
Appellant argues, on pages 9 through 28 of the Brief, the Examiner’s
rejection is in error as the combination of Applicant’s Prior Art Figures 1
and 2 and Katz do not teach first and second upper interconnect layer signal
traces extending outwardly from the spine and between the riser group and a
directly adjacent riser group as claimed.2,3

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Brief and we concur
with Appellant’s conclusion that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of the references teaches first and second upper interconnect
layer signal traces extending outwardly from the spine and between the riser
group and a directly adjacent riser group, as argued on page 23 of the Brief.
The Examiner in rejecting independent claims 42, 48, 55, and 61 finds
that Appellant’s admitted prior art (AAPA) depicts upper interconnect layer
traces extending outwardly. Answer 4. The Examiner also finds that the
AAPA teaches a row of via risers (items 18 in figure 2). We concur with
these findings by the Examiner. Further, the Examiner finds that AAPA
represents the mere duplication of parts to include a second row of via risers.
Answer 4, 10, and 11. Regardless of whether we concur with this finding,
that a second row of risers is obvious, we do not consider such a finding to
teach or suggest more than one upper interconnect layer signal traces

2 Throughout this decision we refer to the Brief dated July 28, 2006.
3 We recognize that Appellant’s arguments present additional issues,
however we do not reach these issues as this argument is dispositive of the
appeal.
Appeal 2009-012136
Application 09/789,401

5

extending between a riser group (where the group comprises a via riser from
each row of via risers) as claimed. Accordingly, we will not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 42, 48, 55, and 61.
The Examiner’s rejections of dependent claims 43 through 47, 49
through 54, 56 through 60, and 62 through 67 similarly rely upon these
findings. Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejections of these dependent claims for the same reasons as identified with
respect to independent claims 42, 48, 55 and 61.

CONCLUSION
Appellants have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s decision to
reject claims 42 through 67.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 42 through 67 is
reversed.

REVERSED

msc