Ex Parte Aoki et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 11, 2016

12509735 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 11, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/509,735 0712712009 88032 7590 07113/2016 Jordan IP Law, LLC c/o CPA Global 900 2nd A venue South, Suite 600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Russell S. Aoki UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www .uspto.gov ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. P30724 1629 EXAMINER SAWYER, STEVEN T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2847 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/13/2016 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address( es): info@jordaniplaw.com admin@jordaniplaw.com inteldocs _ docketing@cpaglobal.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RUSSELL S. AOKI and TOD A. BYQUIST Appeal2015-000100 Application 12/509,735 Technology Center 2800 Before ERIC S. FRAHM, CATHERINE SHIANG, and SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges. HOW ARD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 2-8, 10-15, and 17-23, which constitute all of the claims pending in this application. Claims 1, 9, and 16 have been cancelled. App. Br. 18-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We affirm. THE INVENTION The claimed invention is directed to composite micro-contacts having conductive tines placed in isolation carriers and the isolation carriers coupled to form an array. Spec. i-fi-11, 17-19. 1 Appellants identify Intel Corporation as the real party in interest. Br. 3. Appeal2015-000100 Application 12/509,735 Claim 21, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 21. Composite microelectronic contacts comprising: a first plurality of conductive tines, each conductive tine in the first plurality of conductive tines with a first end having a first contact area and a second end having a first contact pad, the conductive tines in the first plurality of tines being bendable from a first position to a second position if compression is applied to the first contact area; a first isolation carrier configured to hold, space apart and electrically isolate individual conductive tines of the first plurality of conductive tines from one another; a second plurality of conductive tines, each conductive tine in the second plurality of conductive tines with a first end having a second contact area and a second end having a second contact pad, the conductive tines in the second plurality of tines being bendable from a first position to a second position if compression is applied to the second contact area; and a second isolation carrier configured to hold, space apart and electrically isolate individual conductive tines of the second plurality of conductive tines from one another, the first isolation carrier being coupled to the second isolation carrier to form an array of conductive tines. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Grab be us 5,173,055 Dec. 22, 1992 Ashman et al. US 2004/0020044 Al Feb. 5,2004 Stone et al. US 2005/0287828 Al Dec. 29, 2005 Rathbum US 2006/0116004 Al June 1, 2006 Monfarad et al. US 2007/0177351 Al Aug.2,2007 2 Appeal2015-000100 Application 12/509,735 REJECTIONS Claims 2, 3, 6-8, 10, 14, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stone in view of Ashman. Final Act. 2- 7. Claims 4, 5, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stone in view of Ashman and Rathbum. Final Act. 7-9. Claims 11, 13, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stone in view of Ashman and Grabbe. Final Act. 9-10. Claims 17-20 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stone in view of Ashman and Monfarad. Final Act. 10- 14. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we have considered all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellants. We disagree with Appellants' arguments regarding the pending claims. Appellants argue the combination of Stone and Ashman does not teach or suggest "the first isolation carrier being coupled to the second isolation carrier to form an array of conductive tines," as recited in claim 21. Br. 7-12. Specifically, Appellants argue Stone does not teach forming an array; instead, Stone "requires spacing between substrates (interpreted by the Office as isolation carriers)" and "stands for non-coupling between substrates." Br. 8-9. Appellants further argue Ashman does not teach 3 Appeal2015-000100 Application 12/509,735 isolation carriers; instead Ashman teaches "insulative bases which are coupled to one another." Br. 10. Therefore, according to Appellants, because "the rows of contacts are held spaced apart in an array," the combination of references does not result in a claimed array. Br. 11. The Examiner finds Stone teaches "a first isolation carrier (left element 128) configured to hold, space apart and electrically isolate individual conductive tines of the first plurality of conductive tines from one another (figure 1 shows the tines 130 individually spaced apart by the first isolation carrier 128)." Final Act. 3. The Examiner notes Stone does not teach a second isolation carrier and the first isolation carrier coupled to the second isolation carrier to form an array. Id. However, the Examiner finds Ashman teaches forming a composite microelectronic contact structure by coupling two insulating bases to one another. Final Act 3--4 (citing Ashman Fig. 6). Based on those findings, the Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to modify the isolation carriers taught by Stone with the coupled carrier structure of Ashman to form an array of coupled isolation carriers. Final Act. 4; Ans. 2-3. During prosecution, claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation while reading claim language in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). An applicant may, however, act as his or her own lexicographer and specifically define a claim term in the Specification. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Although Appellants' argument focuses on the spacing between the elements (see Br. 8-9, 11 ), Appellants have not provided a specific definition of an array prohibiting such spacing. Accordingly, we apply the 4 Appeal2015-000100 Application 12/509,735 ordinary meaning of array and hold that it is broad enough to encompass any arrangement of tines in rows and columns with no limitation on the relative the spacing between the various isolation carriers. See Array, Webster's New College Dictionary, Third Edition p. 64 (2008) ("a rectangular arrangement of quantities in rows and columns, as in a matrix"). Similarly, the recitation in claim 21 that "the first isolation carrier being coupled to the second isolation carrier to form an array of conductive tines" does not impose a spacing requirement. The Examiner concludes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of coupling is "' [ s ]omething that joins or connects two things together; a link"' and is broad enough to encompass the structure taught in Ashram. Ans. 4 (citing thefreedictionary.com). We agree with the Examiner that the broadest reasonable interpretation of coupling encompasses connections and links even if the items being connected or linked are spaced apart. Because Appellants' arguments regarding spacing are not commensurate with the scope of the claims, they are unpersuasive. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982). Additionally, nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures. In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The test for obviousness is not whether the claimed invention is expressly suggested in any one or all of the references, but whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined teachings of those references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Appellants' arguments focus on the references individually and not the broad teachings as applied by the Examiner. For example, Appellants 5 Appeal2015-000100 Application 12/509,735 focus on whether Stone teaches an array despite the fact that the Examiner relied on Ashram for combining elements to form an array. Compare Br. 8- 9, with Final Act. 3. Similarly, Appellants focus on whether Ashram teaches isolation carriers even though the Examiner relied on Stone for that limitation. Compare Br. 10, with Final Act. 3--4. Accordingly, Appellants' arguments are not persuasive. Instead, we agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings. Stone teaches a first plurality of conductive times and "a first isolation carrier configured to hold, space apart and electrically isolate individual conductive tines of the first plurality of conductive tines from one another." Stone i-f 17, Figs. 1, 2A, 2B. Although Stone does not explicitly teach coupling isolation carriers to teach other, Ashram broadly teaches coupling a first and second bases together to form a combined unit. See Ashram Fig. 6. As the Examiner finds, coupling two or more of Stone's isolation carriers using the broad teaching of Ashman results in an array-rows and columns---of tines. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 21, along with the rejection of claim 22, which is argued on the same grounds, and claims 2, 3, 6-8, 10, and 14, which are not argued separately. With respect to dependent claims 4, 5, 11-13, 15, Appellants merely contend that because the additional references used in the rejections of these claims (Rathbum and Grab be) do not cure the deficiencies in claims 21 and 22, the Examiner failed to make a prima facie case of obviousness for these claims. App. Br. 13-14. Because we determine there are no deficiencies associated with claims 21 and 22 for the reasons discussed above, we sustain the rejections of these claims. 6 Appeal2015-000100 Application 12/509,735 With respect to independent claim 23 and dependent claims 17-20, Appellants rely on the arguments discussed above for claim 21. Appellants further argue that because the additional reference, Monfarad, does not cure the deficiency in claims 21 and 22, the Examiner failed to make a prima facie case of obviousness for these claims. App. Br. 14--16. Because we determine there are no deficiencies associated with claims 21 and 22 for the reasons discussed above, we sustain the rejections of these claims. DECISION For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 2-8, 10-15, and 17-23. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 7