Ex parte SCHRAIVOGEL et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 15, 1997

07757085 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 15, 1997)

Application for patent filed September 10, 1991.1
-1-
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 27
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte RAINER A. SCHRAIVOGEL and GUIDO PLANGGER
____________
Appeal No. 94-3349
Application 07/757,0851
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before JERRY SMITH, BARRETT and CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent
Judges.
CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal from the examiner's
final rejection of claims 9, 10, 33, 34 and 36-40. Claims 2, 4-
8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18-20, 22-25 and 41-45 have been found
Appeal No. 94-3349
Application 07/757,085
-2-
allowable. Claims 1, 3, 11, 14, 17, 21, 26-32 and 35 have been
canceled.
Appellants' claimed subject matter is an inter-
connection structure for electrically connecting a conductor
pattern on a substrate to an additional member. Claims 9 and 33
are illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
9. A display device comprising an electro-optical
medium provided between two supporting bodies provided with drive
electrodes, said drive electrodes on one of the supporting bodies
extending as far as beyond the surface area defined by the
electro-optical medium, characterized in that the drive
electrodes are connected in an electrically conducting manner to
a semiconductor substrate by means of an interconnection
structure having patterned strip-shaped contact elevations on at
least a part of its central surface for contacting a conductor
pattern provided on said semiconductor substrate in an
electrically conductive manner, each of said strip-shaped contact
elevations having a length which is at least 4 times its width.
33. An interconnection structure for connecting a
conductor pattern provided on a substrate in an electrically
conducting manner to an additional member, characterized in that
the interconnection structure has patterned strip-shaped contact
elevations on at least a part of its central surface for
contacting said conductor pattern to said additional member in an
electrically conducting manner, each of said strip-shaped contact
elevations having a length which is at least 4 times its width.
THE REFERENCES
The following references were relied on by the
examiner.
Kubo et al. (Kubo) 4,826,297 May 2, 1989
Blonder et al. (Blonder) 0,352,020 Jan. 24, 1990
Appeal No. 94-3349
Application 07/757,085
-3-
(European Patent)
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 9, 10, 33, 34 and 36-40 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Blonder and Kubo.
Rather than reiterate the entire arguments of the
appellants and the examiner in support of their respective
positions, reference is made to appellants' brief (Paper No. 21)
and reply brief (Paper No. 23), and the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 22) for the full exposition thereof.
OPINION
In reaching our conclusions on the issues raised in
this appeal, we have carefully considered appellants'
specification and claims, the applied references, and the
respective viewpoints advanced by the appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we have made the
determination that the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103. Our reasons for
this determination follow.
The rejection before us is based upon lack of
patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Our current reviewing
court, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and its
predecessor, the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, have
Appeal No. 94-3349
Application 07/757,085
-4-
provided us with the following guidance for evaluating this
issue: The question under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is not merely what the
references expressly teach, but what they would have suggested to
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made. See Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 874
F.2d 804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989) and In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). While
there must be some suggestion or motivation for one of ordinary
skill in the art to combine the teachings of the references, it
is not necessary that such be found within the four corners of
the references themselves; a conclusion of obviousness may be
made from common knowledge and common sense of the person of
ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion
in a particular reference. See In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390,
163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969). Further, in an obviousness
assessment, skill is presumed on the part of the artisan rather
than the lack thereof. In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743, 226 USPQ
771, 774 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Insofar as the references themselves
are concerned, we are bound to consider the disclosure of each
for what it fairly teaches one of ordinary skill in the art,
including not only the specific teachings, but also inferences
which one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have been
Appeal No. 94-3349
Application 07/757,085
-5-
expected to draw therefrom. See In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965,
148 USPQ 507, 510 (CCPA 1966); and In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825,
826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
Claims 9, 10, 34 and 36-40 stand or fall together while
claim 33 is considered by appellants to be separately patentable
(brief at page 3).
Claim 33
We find that Blonder discloses, as depicted in Figures
1 and 2, V-shaped grooves for connecting a conductor pattern on a
substrate 101 in an electrically conducting manner to an
additional member 10 (Col. 2, lines 28-51). Blonder also
discloses that instead of grooves, texturing of the surface of
chip pad 24 can be obtained by forming columns, pyramids or other
protrusions and that vertical sidewalls rather than V grooves may
be used (Col. 9, lines 37-42 and 51-54). Blonder teaches that
the grooves or protrusions produce a mechanically reliable cold-
welded room-temperature bond between the chip pad 24 and the
carrier pad 10 (Col. 6, lines 8-15).
In one embodiment, the grooves may form a nested L's
pattern when viewed from the top as depicted in Figure 5. Each L
pattern is formed by two grooves at right angles to one another.
Blonder further discloses that the distance between adjacent L's
Appeal No. 94-3349
Application 07/757,085
-6-
is 2 micrometers and that the width of two elongated mask
openings which define the two grooves which form the L's is 1
micrometer (Col. 6, lines 29-33). With reference to Figure 5,
since the above stated dimensions indicate that the width of the
grooves which form the L's is 1 micrometer and the distance
between the adjacent L's is 2 micrometers, the length of the
groove which forms the bottom of the L, the shortest groove, is 4
micrometers. Moreover, the four-to-one ratio of length to width
is apparent by inspection. As Blonder also discloses that these
grooves can be protrusions and that the sidewalls can be
vertical, Blonder discloses strip shaped elevations.
Appellants argue that Blonder does not disclose strip-
shaped elevations which have a length which is at least four
times the width. As stated above, Blonder does disclose that the
grooves which form the two grooves of the L's depicted in Figure
5 may be replaced by protrusions which may have vertical
sidewalls. Further, in view of the disclosure in Blonder that
the width of the grooves is 1 micrometer and that the L's are 2
micrometers apart, Blonder clearly discloses that the length of
the shortest groove or protrusion is at least four times its
width. As such we do not find this argument persuasive.
Appeal No. 94-3349
Application 07/757,085
-7-
Appellants also argue that Blonder does not disclose
elevations but grooves. This argument is likewise not persuasive
because as noted above Blonder discloses that the grooves could
be replaced with protrusions. In addition, in our view, the top
of each L-shaped groove 44 may be considered a protrusion.
Claims 9, 10, 34 and 36-40
We find that Kubo discloses, as depicted in Figure 1, a
display device having an electro-optical medium ie. liquid
crystal 11 between two supporting bodies 4 and 9 (Col. 1, lines
22-23). The supporting bodies 4 and 9 are provided with drive
electrodes 9, 10, (Col. 1, lines 25-26). The drive electrode 9
is electrically connected to wiring 12 which extends beyond the
liquid crystal cell so as to electrically connect to a
semiconductor substrate 6 through solder 5 (Col. 1, lines 32-36).
The examiner stated:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the liquid crystal art to have substituted
the "L" shaped textured landing pads of figure 5 of
Blonder et al. for the landings in the device of
Kubo et al. to allow for improved cold bonding.
[Examiner's Answer at page 5]
We agree with the reasoning of the examiner and thus, we will
sustain the rejection as to claims 9, 10, 34 and 36-40.
Appellants argue that there is no suggestion in Kubo or
Blonder to employ an interconnection structure as disclosed in
Appeal No. 94-3349
Application 07/757,085
-8-
Blonder to connect the electrodes in Kubo. We disagree. As both
Blonder and Kubo teach structures in which a chip is electrically
connected to another member, it would have been obvious to use
the grooves or protrusions disclosed in Blonder in the Kubo
device to obtain a reliable cold-welded bond and to overcome the
problems associated with solder bonds (Col. 2, lines 8-34).
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner
rejecting claims 9, 10, 33, 34 and 36-40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
LEE E. BARRETT ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 94-3349
Application 07/757,085
-9-
Corp. Pat. Counsel
U.S. Philips Corp.
580 White Plains RD.
Tarrytown, NY 10591
Appeal No. 94-3349
Application 07/757,085
-10-
Appeal No. 94-3349
Application 07/757,085
-11-
Appeal No. 94-3349
Application 07/757,085
-12-
Appeal No. 94-3349
Application 07/757,085
-13-
Appeal No. 94-3349
Application 07/757,085
-14-
Appeal No. 94-3349
Application 07/757,085
-15-
Appeal No. 94-3349
Application 07/757,085
-16-
Appeal No. 94-3349
Application 07/757,085
-17-
Appeal No. 94-3349
Application 07/757,085
-18-
Appeal No. 94-3349
Application 07/757,085
-19-
Appeal No. 94-3349
Application 07/757,085
-20-