Ex Parte Pai et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 22, 2013

11350276 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 22, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte DEEPAK PAI and MELVIN ERIC GRAF
____________________

Appeal 2010-012002
Application 11/350,276
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-6 and 26-31 (App. Br. 2). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.

Appeal 2010-012002
Application 11/350,276

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to electromechanical leads
connecting integrated circuit packages to printed wire boards (PWB) having
a low profile (Spec. ¶ [0001]).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative.
1. A connector system for resiliently attaching and
electrically connecting a first set of contacts substantially
located on a first surface of a circuit chip to a second set
of contacts substantially located on a second surface of a
circuit board, the connector system comprising:

a plurality of leads in predetermined spaced
relation, each of the plurality of leads being sized and
arranged to form a C-shaped body having a first leg and a
second leg, the first leg and second leg being
substantially parallel with a curved portion between the
first leg and the second leg;

each of the plurality of leads including a strip of
copper foil folded to form the C-shaped body with the
first leg having a first surface configured to connect to at
least one of the first set of contacts and the second leg
having a second surface configured to connect to at least
one of the second set of contacts, the plurality of leads
being sized and arranged such that the first surface of the
circuit chip is substantially parallel to the second surface
of a circuit board; and

wherein the plurality of leads defines a separation of
about 0.010 inches or less between the first surface of the
circuit chip and the second surface of the circuit board.

REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
upon the teachings of Phy (US Patent 4,751,199, Jun. 14, 1988) in view of
Appeal 2010-012002
Application 11/350,276

3
Chen (US Patent 6,867,984 B2, Mar. 15, 2005) and Chan (US Patent No.
6,224,396 B1, May 1, 2001).
The Examiner rejected claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon
the teachings of Phy and Jimarez (US Patent 5,729,440, Mar. 17, 1998).
The Examiner rejected claims 26-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
upon the teachings of Phy and Zhu (US Patent 6,784,378 B2, Aug. 31,
2004).

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Phy discloses all the limitations of Appellants’
claim 1, except for a plurality of leads defining a separation of about 0.010
inches or less between a first surface of a chip and a second surface of a
circuit board (Ans. 4). The Examiner finds Chen discloses it would be
known in the art to miniaturize electronic products by making the height of
contacts as small as possible (id.). The Examiner then finds Chan discloses
an interposer having a height of about 0.030-0.035 inches and a deflection of
0.020 inches, thus providing a separation of about 0.010 inches (Ans. 5).
Appellants contend Chen teaches away from Appellants’ invention.
That is, although Chen does teach “a trend toward miniaturization,” it notes
the reduction in the size of the gap should not be too much or problems will
ensure for a C-lead gap. Further, Chen discloses the compressible space of
the gap should be at least 0.8 mm so the element can be restored to its proper
initial state. (Chen, col. 1, l. 43-col. 2, l. 2; App. Br. 6-8). Thus, in Chen, a
C-lead gap is required to be 0.030 inches (App. Br. 7) and cannot be reduced
further than 0.030 inches (App. Br. 8). Chen solves this problem by
proposing a new lead design that is not C-shaped, but is whistle shaped.
Appeal 2010-012002
Application 11/350,276

4
Appellants’ further note, Chan discloses a Z-shaped lead having a separation
gap of about 0.030-0.035 inches; whereas a C-shaped lead is claimed (App.
Br. 10).
The Examiner responds that Chen was cited for miniaturization and
not for teaching gap size and that Chan was cited for various shapes
“including a shape close to ‘S’ shape (reverse) with a thickness of 0.0030”
(which is close to the thickness of the lead in the instant invention, recited in
the dependent claim 2, about 0.0028”). This shape is close to two C-shapes,”
(Ans. 10)
It should be noted that a C-shape is claimed. Chan does not disclose a
C-shape; it does disclose an S-shape and a Z-shape. We agree with
Appellants’ arguments, particularly that an S-lead, for example, has two
different points of curvature that absorb stress. A C-lead has only one point
of curvature. Thus, the different shapes are subject to different mechanical
considerations. (Reply Br. 6). We further agree that Chen teaches away and
also abandoned the C-shape lead for a whistle shaped lead (App. Br. 6).
Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim
1, and claims 2-6 and 26-31 dependent therefrom, as none of the other cited
references cures the deficiencies of Phy, Chen, or Chan.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-6 and 26-31 is reversed.

REVERSED

Vsh/peb