Ex Parte Chen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 15, 2019

14769903 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 15, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/769,903 08/24/2015 22879 7590 03/19/2019 HP Inc. 3390 E. Harmony Road Mail Stop 35 FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Chien-Hua Chen 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. 84349604 8018 EXAMINER LEGESSE, HENOK D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2853 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/19/2019 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): ipa.mail@hp.com barbl@hp.com yvonne.bailey@hp.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CHIEN-HUA CHEN and MICHAEL W. CUMBIE Appeal2018-007316 Application 14/769,903 Technology Center 2800 Before TERRY J. OWENS, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and BRIAND. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellant (Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P.) appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1- 11 and 16-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). The Invention The claims are to a flow structure and a printhead structure. Claims 1 and 7 are illustrative: 1. A fluid flow structure, comprising: a printed circuit board comprising an epoxy; a micro device embedded in the printed circuit board, the printed circuit board having: a channel formed therein for fluid to flow to the micro device; and Appeal2018-007316 Application 14/769,903 a conductor connected to a conductor on the micro device. 7. A printhead structure, comprising multiple printhead dies mounted in a printed circuit board having: multiple channels therein each to provide printing fluid directly to a die; and conductors connected to electrical terminals on the dies; wherein the printhead dies are recessed into the channels of the printed circuit board such that an upper surface of the printhead die that receives printing fluid into the die is disposed down inside the channel allowing fluid to flow within the channel over the upper surface of the printhead die. Wong Silverbrook Haluzak Fielder Suganuma Dietl The References US 6,188,414 Bl US 2005/0018016 Al US 2008/0259125 Al US 2011/0298868 Al US 8,177,330 B2 US 2012/0212540 Al The Re} ections Feb. 13,2001 Jan.27,2005 Oct. 23, 2008 Dec. 8, 2011 May 15, 2012 Aug. 23, 2012 The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as follows: claims 1-10, 18, and 19 over Haluzak in view of Silverbrook and/or Wong, claim 11 over Haluzak in view of Silverbrook and/or Wong, further in view of Dietl and/or Fielder, and claims 16, 17, and 20 over Haluzak in view of Silverbrook and/or Wong, further in view of Suganuma. OPINION We reverse the rejections. We need address only the independent claims, i.e., 1 and 7. Those claims require a printed circuit board. To meet that claim requirement the Examiner relies upon Haluzak (Ans. 2, 7). 2 Appeal2018-007316 Application 14/769,903 Haluzak discloses a first glass substrate (12) which has pad/conductors (34C) on one of its sides and is attached on its opposite side to a second glass substrate (42) (i1i117, 18, 35; Fig. 4). "' [D]uring examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.'" In re Translogic Tech. Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). The Appellant's Specification states that "[a]s used in this document, a 'printed circuit board' means a non- conductive substrate with conductive pathways for mechanically supporting and electrically connecting to an electronic device (printed circuit board is sometimes abbreviated 'PCB')" (Spec. ,r 10). The Examiner finds, in reliance upon the Appellant's Specification's above-stated definition of "printed circuit board," that "12 and/or 12+42 figs. 4, 5, 7 of Haluzak et al teaches such [printed circuit board] limitation" (Ans. 3), and "Haluzak et al clearly teaches a printed circuit board (12 and/or 12+42 in figs. 4, 5, 7) which is a non-conductive substrate (both substrates 12 and 42 are glass substrates which is non-conductive, paragraph 0044 lines 4-6, paragraph 0016 lines 1-2, paragraph 022 line 18) with conductive pathways for mechanically supporting and electrically connecting to an electronic device ( electronic device 32 and die 28 are supported in the pockets 20, 18 and electrically connected by interconnect pads/connectors 34A, 34B and 38 in the printed circuit board 12/12+42. See paragraphs 0024 lines 9-14, 0027, 0029, 0034, figs.2A,2B,2C,4)" (Ans. 15- 16). Haluzak's pads/connectors 34A, 34B, and 38 are not in the glass substrate (12) or glass substrates (12+42) as found by the Examiner. The 3 Appeal2018-007316 Application 14/769,903 glass substrate (12) has 1) an electronics pocket (20) in which an electronic device (32) having thereon pad/conductor 34A is embedded by adhesive (30), and 2) die pockets (18) in which dies (28) having thereon pad/conductor 34B and electrical connection 38 are embedded by adhesive (30) (i1i129-31, 35, 36; Figs. 2A---C, 4). Thus, pad/conductors 34A and 34B and electrical connection 38 are on components adhered to the glass substrate (12), not, as found by the Examiner (Ans. 16), in the glass substrate (12). The glass substrate (12) has thereon pad/connectors (34C) (i135; Figs. 2B, 4), but the Examiner does not establish that they correspond to the "conductive pathways for mechanically supporting and electrically connecting to an electronic device" in the Appellant's definition of "printed circuit board." Thus, the Examiner has not set forth a factual basis sufficient to support a conclusion of obviousness of the Appellant's claimed invention. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) ("A rejection based on section 103 clearly must rest on a factual basis, and these facts must be interpreted without hindsight reconstruction of the invention from the prior art."). Accordingly, we reverse the rejections. DECISION The rejections under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) of claims 1-10, 18, and 19 over Haluzak in view of Silverbrook and/ or Wong, claim 11 over Haluzak in view of Silverbrook and/or Wong, further in view of Dietl and/or Fielder, and claims 16, 17, and 20 over Haluzak in view of Silverbrook and/or Wong, further in view of Suganuma are reversed. The Examiner's decision is reversed. REVERSED 4