Ex Parte Rumsey

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 27, 2006

09377286 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 27, 2006)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte BRAD D. RUMSEY
______________
Appeal No. 2006-0031
Application 09/377,286
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before KRASS, OWENS, and RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal is from a rejection of claims 1-6, 10-12, 14, 16
and 19. Claims 7, 8, 13, 15, 17, 18 and 20-30 stand withdrawn from
consideration by the examiner.
THE INVENTION
The appellant claims a bonding pad system having a trace stub
to counteract an attractive force applied to solder by a trace.
Claims 1 and 10 are illustrative:
Appeal No. 2006-0031
Application 09/377,286
2
1. A bond pad assembly comprising:
a bond pad;
a trace that applies an attractive force to solder placed on
the pad, said trace coupled to said pad and extending away from said
pad in a first direction; and
a trace stub to counteract the attractive force applied by the
trace, said trace stub coupled to said pad and extending away from
said pad in a direction other than said first direction.
10. A bonding system comprising:
a bond pad;
a trace coupled to said bond pad and extending away from said
pad; and
an element adapted to counteract an attractive force applied by
the trace to solder placed on the bond pad.
THE REFERENCE
Healy et al. (Healy) 3,537,176 Nov. 3, 1970
THE REJECTION
Claims 1-6, 10-12, 14, 16 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Healy.
Appeal No. 2006-0031
Application 09/377,286
3
OPINION
We reverse the aforementioned rejection. We need to address
only the independent claims, i.e., claims 1 and 10. Claim 1
requires a trace that applies an attractive force to solder placed
on a pad, and a trace stub to counteract the attractive force
applied by the trace. Claim 10 requires a trace coupled to a bond
pad, and an element adapted to counteract an attractive force
applied by the trace to solder placed on the bond pad.
Healy discloses (col. 2, lines 18-21):
Referring now in detail to FIG. 1 and FIG. 2, a
printed circuit trace 1 is supported by encasing
insulation 2. The insulation has been removed from a
portion of one side of the trace to expose the
interconnect pad 4.
The examiner argues that Healy’s figure 1 shows that portions
of the trace and the stub (opposite the trace) are exposed (answer,
page 5). As indicated by the above-cited excerpt from Healy, the
removal of insulation exposes the interconnect pad. Healy does not
disclose that the trace, which is to the left of the interconnect
pad in figure 2, is exposed.
The examiner argues that the attractive force of the trace on
the solder is created by the trace being coupled to and extending
away from the pad (answer, page 5). The appellant’s specification
states that soft solder tends to wick along a trace, and that the
Appeal No. 2006-0031
Application 09/377,286
4
wicking is believed to be the result of capillary attraction between
the solder and the trace (page 1, lines 18-22). Healy’s figure 2
shows that the trace is covered with insulation (as indicated by the
above-cited excerpt, the opening in the insulation is the
interconnect pad, not the trace). The examiner has not explained
how, if the trace is covered with insulation, there can be wicking
along the trace. Nor has the examiner provided evidence or
technical reasoning which shows that the mere coupling of the trace
to Healy’s interconnect pad can result in an attractive force being
applied to solder placed on the interconnect pad.
The examiner argues that the claims do not require exposure of
the trace to the solder (answer, page 6). The claims require an
attractive force between a trace and solder. If exposure of the
trace to the solder is required to produce that attractive force,
then the claims implicitly require such exposure.
The examiner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have construed the void illustrated by Healy as defining an exposed
pad and exposed portions of the trace and stub (answer, page 6). As
indicated by the above-cited excerpt of Healy, the reference
discloses that the insulation removal exposes the interconnect pad.
The examiner has not provided evidence or technical reasoning which
shows that one of ordinary skill in the art would have construed
Appeal No. 2006-0031
Application 09/377,286
5
that excerpt as meaning that portions of the trace and the stub also
are exposed.
The examiner argues that because both the appellant (figure 2)
and Healy (figure 2) show a stub opposite a trace, Healy’s stub is
the element required by the appellant’s claim 10 (answer, page 7).
As shown in the appellant’s figure 2, although a portion of the
trace (12) and a portion of the stub (16) are covered by a solder
mask (18), another portion of the trace and the stub can contact the
solder. Healy does not disclose that when the insulation is removed
to expose the interconnect pad, portions of the trace and stub also
are exposed. Thus, Healy does not disclose the structure in the
appellant’s figure 2.
For the above reasons we find that the examiner has not carried
the burden of establishing a prima facie case of anticipation of the
appellant’s claimed invention.
Appeal No. 2006-0031
Application 09/377,286
6
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-6, 10-12, 14, 16 and 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Healy is reversed.
REVERSED
Errol A. Krass )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
Terry J. Owens ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
Joseph F. Ruggiero )
Administrative Patent Judge )

TJO/cam
Appeal No. 2006-0031
Application 09/377,286
7
Trop, Pruner, Hu & Miles, P.C.
8554 Katy Freeway, Suite 100
Houston, TX 77024