Ex Parte Ichiyama

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 2, 2014

11812833 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 2, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11/812,833 06/22/2007 Iwane Ichiyama 10401.0009 4694 22852 7590 01/02/2014 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP 901 NEW YORK AVENUE, NW WASHINGTON, DC 20001-4413 EXAMINER CHEN, XIAOLIANG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2847 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/02/2014 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte IWANE ICHIYAMA ____________ Appeal 2011-012101 Application 11/812,833 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before PETER F. KRATZ, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and KAREN M. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judges. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is set forth below: Appeal 2011-012101 Application 11/812,833 2 The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Terasaka US 2002/0149921 A1 Oct. 17, 2002 Takaishi US 2005/0237467 A1 Oct. 27, 2005 THE REJECTION Claims 1-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Terasaka in view of Takaishi. Appeal 2011-012101 Application 11/812,833 3 ISSUE Did the Examiner err in determining that the combination of applied references suggests Appellants’ claimed subject matter, and in particular the aspect of the claims pertaining to: fourth terminal groups, each of which is electrically connected to each terminal of the first terminal groups of the first boards by thermocompression bonding and is sandwiched between each of the third terminal groups, and wherein the pitch between each of the third terminal group and the fourth terminal group adjacent to the third terminal group is set to be smaller than the predetermined pitch under a state before the first boards are bonded under thermocompression? We answer this question in the negative and AFFIRM. ANALYSIS As an initial matter, Appellant has not presented separate arguments for all of the rejected claims. Rather, Appellant’s arguments are principally directed to claim 1. Any claim not separately argued will stand or fall with the argued claims from which it depends. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1) (vii). We adopt the Examiner’s findings respecting the teachings of the prior art that are pertinent to the issues raised by Appellant. We, therefore, incorporate the thrust of the Examiner’s obviousness position as set forth in the Answer, and AFFIRM. We add the following for emphasis. Appellant states: Appeal 2011-012101 Application 11/812,833 4 Takaishi does not teach “third terminal groups” and “forth terminal groups” in which the “forth terminal groups” are “sandwiched between each of the third terminal groups.” Br. 11. However, the Examiner correctly points out that he relies upon the primary reference of Terasaka for teaching this aspect of the claimed subject (Ans. 3-6), and that he relies upon Takaishi for teaching the concept of setting pitch to accommodate different thermal expansion values of different boards, as follows: the concept of [the] whole invention is when two different boards (flexible circuit board and rigid wiring board) both having terminal pads to connected together under thermocompression (by heat pressure), due to the different thermal extension amount of two different boards, the pitched on two boards should set different pitches, set the pitches become smaller from center toward ends of one board (or become larger from center toward ends of the other board), such that to prevent misalignment between the terminals on two different the bonded boards upon the thermocompression bonding process; Takaishi teaches the above concept in Para. [0013]: Depending on the thermal expansion coefficient of the flexible substrate, the other terminals are arranged at such a pitch that becomes large from the middle of the length of the terminal region towards the peripheral ends thereof; and in Para. [0116]: a glass substrate and a resin-made FPC are greatly different in linear expansion coefficient. Therefore, terminals formed on the glass substrate and those on the FPC are arranged in different pitches in consideration of their deformation behaviors upon thermocompression bonding them, thereby preventing misalignment between the terminals on the bonded substrates [0116]. Ans. 14-15. Appeal 2011-012101 Application 11/812,833 5 We, thus, are not convinced by argument that does not address the combination of references as applied by the Examiner. We add that a prima facie case of obviousness is established where the Examiner demonstrates that the invention is nothing more than the predictable result of a combination of familiar elements according to known methods. KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007); Rolls-Royce, PLC v. United Technologies Corp., 603 F.3d 1325, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“If a person of ordinary skill, before the time of invention and without knowledge of that invention, would have found the invention merely an easily predictable and achievable variation or combination of the prior art, then the invention likely would have been obvious.”), as in the instant case. In view of the above, we affirm the rejection. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION The rejection is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). AFFIRMED cam