Ex Parte Chen et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 15, 2019

14769903 - (D) (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. § 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-
11 and 16-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 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. § 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. § 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