Ex parte Utter et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 15, 1998

08355886 (B.P.A.I. May. 15, 1998)

Application for patent filed December 14, 1994.1
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was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is not
binding precedent of the Board.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. 19
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte JAMES C. UTTER, MICHAEL J. MATTS
and AHMED S. SHAH
__________
Appeal No. 97-0745
Application No. 08/355,8861
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before COHEN, ABRAMS and CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judges.
ABRAMS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the decision of the examiner finally
rejecting claims 1 through 5, which constitute all of the claims
of record in the application.
The appellants’ invention is directed to a metal stencil
mask for use in forming a paste pattern on a substrate. The
Appeal No. 97-0745
Application No. 08/355,886
2
subject matter before us on appeal is illustrated by reference to
claim 1, which has been reproduced in an appendix to the
appellants’ Brief.
THE REFERENCE
The reference relied upon by the examiner to support the
final rejection is:
Ahn et al. (Ahn) 4,803,110 Feb. 7, 1989
THE REJECTION
Claims 1 through 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Ahn.
The rejection is explained in the Examiner's Answer.
The opposing viewpoints of the appellants are set forth in
the Brief and the Reply Brief.
OPINION
The examiner has taken the position that the claims are
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We have evaluated this
rejection on the basis of the following guidelines provided by
our reviewing court. The examiner bears the initial burden of
presenting a prima facie case of obviousness (see In re
Appeal No. 97-0745
Application No. 08/355,886
3
Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir.
1993) and In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443,
1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992)), which is established when the teachings
of the prior art itself would appear to have suggested the
claimed subject matter to one of ordinary skill in the art (see
In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir.
1993) and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147
(CCPA 1976)).
This invention relates to a metal stencil mask for screen
printing a conductive paste upon a substrate during the
fabrication of microelectronic devices. According to the
appellants, these masks typically comprise a stencil portion,
which is placed in contact with the substrate, and a mesh portion
which provides support for the stencil portion. The depth of the
voids in the stencil portion of the mask determine the thickness
of the lines of conductive paste deposited upon the substrate.
Known masks often deposit excessive amounts of paste upon the
substrate. In the case where the substrate is an unfired ceramic
sheet, this can result in problems such as substrate instability,
the result of which can be substrate “opens” as a result of “via”
columns being misaligned. The objective of the appellants’
invention is to overcome these problems, and this is accomplished
Appeal No. 97-0745
Application No. 08/355,886
4
by the establishment of certain dimensional relationships between
the various components. Specification, pages 1 through 4.
As recited in independent claim 1, the invention comprises a
metal stencil mask of foil produced from an essentially
homogeneous metal sheet having a thickness of less than about 200
microns, a stencil formed in the foil and extending inwardly from
a first exterior surface to a first depth, and a mesh formed in
the foil and extending inwardly from a second surface to a second
depth, wherein the ratio of the first depth to the second depth
is less than 60:40.
The examiner is of the view that the subject matter of this
claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
on the basis of the disclosure of Ahn. The appellant argues
that, while Ahn bears a strong resemblance of the claimed mask,
the reference fails to disclose or teach the required 60:40 ratio
between the depths of the stencil and the mesh. The examiner’s
stated position, however, is that while Ahn does not specify that
the claimed ratio is present in his mask, one of ordinary skill
would have understood this to be the case by recognizing from the
drawings that the two layers appear to be of similar depths,
considering that “if the ratio of the depths were to be 10:90 or
any other extreme . . . the reference would have made a note of
Appeal No. 97-0745
Application No. 08/355,886
5
such a drastic difference” (Answer, page 4). The examiner
continues that
[i]n view of the teaching of Ahn et al., the specific
depths of each . . . layer would appear to involve
simply obvious experimentation based upon the total
thickness of the metal stencil mask defined, the
stability of the mask when voids are present in both
layers and the specific needs of the item to be
printed.
We agree with the appellants that the teachings found in the
Ahn patent document fail to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness with respect to the subject matter recited in claim
1. The appellants have recognized a problem that goes
unrecognized in Ahn and is far afield from Ahn’s stated goal of
reducing the abrasive wear on masks. While Ahn is totally silent
as to any specific details of the ratio between the two layers,
in text and drawings, this is a key element of the appellants’
invention which is recited with particularity in the appellants’
claims. From our perspective, the only suggestion for providing
the claimed ratio between the two layers is found in the luxury
accorded one who first viewed the appellants’ disclosure. This,
of course, cannot be the basis for a rejection under Section 103.
See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1784 (Fed.
Cir. 1992).
Appeal No. 97-0745
Application No. 08/355,886
6
The rejection of independent claim 1, and dependent claims 2
through 5, therefore is not sustained.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
IRWIN CHARLES COHEN )
Administrative Patent Judge)
)
)
)
NEAL E. ABRAMS ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD )
Administrative Patent Judge)
Appeal No. 97-0745
Application No. 08/355,886
7
Ira D. Blecker
IBM Corporation
Dept. 18G/Bldg. 300-482
1580 Route 52
Hopewell Junction, NY 12533-6531