Ex parte Vanhoutte

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 18, 2001

08752865 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 18, 2001)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 15
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte EDDY W. VANHOUTTE
and
GILBERT DE CLERCQ
__________
Appeal No. 1999-1121
Application No. 08/752,865
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before THOMAS, HAIRSTON, and LALL, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims
2 through 6. In an Amendment After Final (paper number
11), claims 3 through 5 were amended. Claims 7 through 9
stand withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a
non-elected invention.
Appeal No. 1999-1121
Application No. 08/752,865
2
The disclosed invention relates to an electrically
conductive wire that has first and second solder balls
fixed on the wire. The two solder balls are separated by
flux fixed on the wire.
Claim 3 is the only independent claim on appeal, and
it reads as follows:
3. An apparatus comprising
a. an electrically conductive wire;
b. a first solder ball fixed on said wire;
c. a second solder ball fixed on said wire,
said second ball being distinct from
said first ball; and
d. flux fixed on said wire and separating
said first and second solder balls.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Krueger 3,889,364 Jun. 17, 1975
Siden 3,925,596 Dec. 9, 1975
Gurevich et al. (Gurevich) 5,298,877 Mar. 29, 1994
Fukuhara 1 052 475 Apr. 10, 1979
(Published Canadian Patent Application)
Claims 3 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as being anticipated by Krueger.
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Krueger in view of Gurevich.
Appeal No. 1999-1121
Application No. 08/752,865
3
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Krueger in view of Fukuhara.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Krueger in view of Fukuhara and
Siden.
Reference is made to the brief (paper no. 13) and
the answer (paper no. 14) for the respective positions of
the appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record
before us, and we will sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection of claims 3 and 6, and the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claim 2. On the other hand, we will reverse
the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejections of claims 4 and 5.
Turning first as we must to the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection of claims 3 and 6, we agree with the examiner
(answer, pages 3 and 4) that Krueger discloses (Figure 2)
an electrically conductive wire 1, a first solder ball 4
fixed on the wire in loop 3, a second solder ball 4'
fixed on the wire in loop 3' that is distinct from the
Appeal No. 1999-1121
Application No. 08/752,865
4
first solder ball 4, and flux fixed on the wire that
separates the first and
Appeal No. 1999-1121
Application No. 08/752,865
5
second solder balls (Krueger, claim 4 and column 3, lines
61 through 64).
Appellants argue (brief, page 4) that “the flattened
solder elements are not balls as claimed.” Appellants’
argument is not well received in that neither the
disclosed and claimed balls nor the balls in Krueger are
balls in the classical sense since they are not
completely spherical in shape. If the claimed solder
elements are balls, then the solder elements 4 and 4' in
Krueger are balls. Thus, we agree with the examiner
(answer, page 7) that “there is no structure recited in
claim 3 which would preclude Krueger’s elements 4 and 4'
from serving as the first and second solder balls.” With
respect to claim 6, we agree with the examiner (answer,
page 4) that “[t]he disclosed dipping of each of the
loops 3 and 3' into a molten bath of solder would result
in solder being applied to the exterior as well as the
interior of the loop, thus disposing solder substantially
around the wire 1, as recited by Applicants.”
Appellants acknowledge (brief, page 4) that
Krueger’s flux covers the flattened solder elements and
Appeal No. 1999-1121
Application No. 08/752,865
6
the wire loops, but nevertheless conclude (brief, page 4)
that “[o]nly the wire portion 1 can be said to separate
Krueger’s solder elements.” Appellants’ argument to the
contrary notwithstanding, we agree with the examiner
(answer, page 7) that the flux on each of the solder
balls functions to separate the two solder balls from
each other.
Based upon the foregoing, the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection of claims 3 and 6 is sustained.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 2 is
sustained pro forma because appellants have not presented
any arguments to refute the conclusion of obviousness
reached by the examiner (answer, page 4).
When claim 4 is considered as a whole, we find that
it requires an end protruding beyond the solder ball that
is suitable for insertion through a substrate. Inasmuch
as the ends of the wire 1 in Krueger have been bent into
loops, we find it hard to believe that the skilled
artisan after considering the teachings of Fukuhara would
attempt to put ends onto the wire 1 so that they would
extend beyond the loops. In short, we agree with
Appeal No. 1999-1121
Application No. 08/752,865
7
appellants (brief, page 5) that “[a]ny hypothetical
combination of the two results
Appeal No. 1999-1121
Application No. 08/752,865
8
from impermissible hindsight in view of Applicants’
disclosure.” The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 4
is reversed.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 5 is
likewise reversed because the applied references neither
teach nor would have suggested ends protruding from each
of the two loops in Krueger’s wire 1 that are suitable
for insertion into a substrate.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 3 and
6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is affirmed, and the decision
of the examiner rejecting claims 2, 4 and 5 under 35
U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is affirmed as to claim 2, and is reversed as to
claims 4 and 5. Accordingly, the decision of the
examiner is affirmed-in-part.
Appeal No. 1999-1121
Application No. 08/752,865
9
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
PARSHOTAM S. LALL )
Administrative Patent Judge )
KWH:hh
Appeal No. 1999-1121
Application No. 08/752,865
10
U.S. PHILIPS CORPORATION
CORPORATE PATENT COUNSEL
580 WHITE PLAINS ROAD
TARRYTOWN, NY 10591