Ex Parte Siegel et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJul 14, 201010835419 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 14, 2010) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte HARRY M. SIEGEL and ANTHONY M. CHIU ____________________ Appeal 2009-012529 Application 10/835,419 Technology Center 2800 ____________________ Before: MARC S. HOFF, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING Appeal 2009-012529 Application 10/835,419 INTRODUCTION Appellants’ Request for Rehearing, filed September 27, 2010, including a Certificate of Mailing in compliance with 37 CFR § 1.8 indicating a First Class Mail deposit date of September 16, 2010, contends that we erred in our Decision on Appeal entered July 16, 2010. In the Decision we affirmed the prior art rejection of claims 15, 17, 19-24, 26-31, 33, 34, and 36. OPINION Appellants argue that the Board misapprehended the meaning of Gang’s teaching that “[a] heat conductive or electrically conductive die- bonding epoxy is preferably used for attachment of the semiconductor chip” (col. 9, ll. 36-38). According to Appellants, the Board’s negative inferences that a heat conductive die-bonding epoxy is inherently electrically nonconductive and that an electrically conductive die-bonding epoxy is inherently heat nonconductive are improper given the teachings of Gang as a whole (Req. for Reh’g 2). While we agree with Appellants (Req. for Reh’g 3) that the disclosure concerning the embodiment of Figure 10 does not explicitly state that a heat conductive die-bonding epoxy is electrically nonconductive nor that an electrically conductive die-bonding epoxy is thermally nonconductive, Appellants’ further argument that the Board has insufficient evidence in Gang to support its negative inferences (Req. for Reh’g 3-4) is not persuasive. The plain meaning of the sentence relied upon by the Board in the Decision admits of no alternative interpretation. Gang states that its die- bonding epoxy is “heat conductive or electrically conductive” (referring to 2 Appeal 2009-012529 Application 10/835,419 Gang col. 6, ll. 25-31) (emphasis added). The word “or” indicates an alternative. Gang is disclosing that its epoxy is either heat conductive or electrically conductive; the statement does not allow for both properties to be true at the same time. Further, because an object is either thermally conductive or thermally nonconductive, and because an object is either electrically conductive or electrically nonconductive, Gang’s disclosure therefore also means that its heat conductive epoxy is electrically nonconductive, and that an electrically conductive epoxy is thermally nonconductive. The fact that Gang teaches that in an alternative embodiment the die-bonding epoxy used is both electrically and thermally conductive (col. 6, ll. 48-52; Req. for Reh’g 3) does nothing to alter our interpretation of the portion of Gang’s disclosure cited in the Decision. Appellants’ remarks concerning the other references of record (Req. for Reh’g 4-6) are not considered germane to the Request for Rehearing, because the Board relied on Gang to teach the aspect of the claimed invention at issue in the Request. Therefore, Appellants have not shown any points which we misapprehended or overlooked in our Decision. CONCLUSION In summary, we have granted Appellants’ request for rehearing to the extent that we have reconsidered our decision rejecting claims 15, 17, 19-24, 26-31, 33, 34, and 36, but we decline to modify the decision in any way. 3 Appeal 2009-012529 Application 10/835,419 REHEARING DENIED ELD STMICROELECTRONICS, INC. MAIL STATION 2346 1310 ELECTRONICS DRIVE CARROLLTON, TX 75006 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation