Ex Parte 6615485 et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 13, 2012

95000358 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 13, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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. 95/000,358 03/14/2008 6615485 P6C2-RX 4928 50905 7590 03/13/2012 Ken Burraston/FormFactor KIRTON & MCCONKIE P.O. BOX 45120 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84145-0120 EXAMINER FLANAGAN, BEVERLY MEINDL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3993 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/13/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Inter Partes FORMFACTOR, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant v. PHICOM CORPORATION Requestor, Respondent _____ Appeal 2011-010727 Reexamination Control No. 95/000,358 United States Patent 6,615,485 B2 Technology Center 3900 ____________ Before JAMESON LEE, KARL D. EASTHOM, and DANIEL S. SONG, Administrative Patent Judges. EASTHOM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-010727 Reexamination Control 95/000,358 Patent 6,615,485 B2 This proceeding arose from a request by Phicom Corporation for an inter partes reexamination of U.S. 6,615,485 B2 to Eldridge et al., Probe Card Assembly and Kit, and Methods of Making Same (issued Sept. 9, 2003). Appellant, patent owner FormFactor, Inc., appeals under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 306 from the Examiner’s decision in the Right of Appeal Notice (RAN) rejecting claims 1-12, 15, 18-25, 29-38, 41, and 42 of the ‘485 patent. (App. Br. 2.) Respondent, requestor Phicom, supports the Examiner’s decision. (See Resp. Br.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6, 134, and 315. We AFFIRM. STATEMENT OF THE CASE The ‘485 patent discloses a probe card assembly used to test multiple chip die sites on semiconductor wafers (e.g. 508, Fig. 5 infra) using elongate, resilient probe elements (e.g. 524, id.) and a compliant interconnection structure (504, 512, 516). (See Abstract and discussion below.) The issues here reduce primarily to whether or not the prior art discloses “elongate, resilient probe elements” and a “compliant interconnection structure” as recited in claim 1; and a “probe substrate movably affixed” to a probe card and “aligning tips of said [elongate, resilient] probe elements” as recited in claim 32. Some of the Examiner’s rejections are sustained, some are not, and some are not decided here. Appeal 2011-010727 Reexamination Control 95/000,358 Patent 6,615,485 B2 3 The Claims Exemplary claims 1 and 32 (with some disputed terms emphasized) follow: 1. (Original) A method of producing a tested semiconductor device comprising: providing a probe card assembly, said probe card assembly including a probe card having a plurality of electrical contacts, a probe substrate having a plurality of elongate, resilient probe elements, and a compliant interconnection structure electrically connecting ones of said electrical contacts with ones of said probe elements; providing a plurality of semiconductor devices, each of said semiconductor devices including electrical contact pads; bringing said probe elements into contact with said electrical contact pads of said semiconductor device; and testing said semiconductor devices. 32. (Original) A method of producing a tested semiconductor device comprising: providing a probe card comprising a plurality of electrical contacts; providing a probe substrate moveably affixed to said probe card and comprising a plurality of elongate, resilient probe elements, ones of said elongate resilient probe elements being in electrical communication with ones of said electrical contacts; aligning tips of said probe elements by altering an orientation of said probe substrate with respect to said probe card; providing a semiconductor device; bringing said tips into contact with said semiconductor device; and testing said semiconductor device. Appeal 2011-010727 Reexamination Control 95/000,358 Patent 6,615,485 B2 4 The ‘485 Patent (Factual Findings) P1. The ‘485 patent’s Figure 5 appears below: Figure 5 represents an exploded view of a probe card assembly disclosed in the ‘485 patent and pertaining to the claims at issue. (See col. 9, ll. 18-19.) Generally, the assembly is employed upside down relative to the depiction supra, with the semiconductor wafer 508 pushed upward by undepicted mechanisms. (Col. 27, ll. 10-14.) According to the Appeal Brief, Figure 5 supports the probe card assembly recited in claim 1 as follows: a probe card (502) having a plurality of electrical contacts (510), a probe substrate (506) having a plurality of elongate, resilient probe elements (524), and a compliant interconnection structure (504, 514, 516) electrically Appeal 2011-010727 Reexamination Control 95/000,358 Patent 6,615,485 B2 5 connecting said contacts (510) with said probe elements 524. (App. Br. 2- 3). The compliant interconnection element 504 includes a substrate 512. (Col. 23, l. 24.) P2. “It is within the scope of the invention, that any suitable resilient contact structures (514, 516, 524) be employed on the interposer (504) [i.e., compliant interconnection structure] and/or space transformer (506) [i.e., probe substrate], including tabs (ribbons) of phospor bronze material or the like brazed or soldered to contact areas. . . .” (Col. 27, ll. 23-27 (emphasis added).) Fig. 1A of the ‘485 patent appears next: Fig. 1A shows a probe core 112 and shell 114 with an elongated, spring (resilient) shape as discussed further below. The preferred embodiments for the elongate, resilient probe elements include a “soft” inner core (wire) (112, 216) such as gold (col. 11, l. 47; col. 13, ll. 55-58) and one or more layers “of a hard material (such as nickel and its alloys) to impart a desired resiliency to the interconnection element” (114) (col. 10, l. 49; col. 14, ll. 3-5). Appeal 2011-010727 Reexamination Control 95/000,358 Patent 6,615,485 B2 6 The ‘485 patent describes Figure 1A as illustrating “the simplest of spring shapes for an interconnection element of the present invention- namely, a straight cantilever beam oriented at an angle to a force F applied at its tip 110b.” (Col. 10, ll. 57-60.) P3. In addition to metals, the ‘485 patent also includes, as part of the invention, an insulating dielectric layer or non-metallic materials, or “any material amenable to overcoating,” (col. 12, ll. 53-55), as part of the core or other portion of the resilient probe elements, which the ‘485 patent refers to as “composite interconnection elements.” (Col. 15, ll. 46-47; col. 16, ll. 8- 10.) P4. As indicated (see P2), preferred “composite interconnection elements” exhibiting resilient properties are made by forming a soft core “overcoated by hard (springy) materials” (col. 10, ll. 38-42) such as nickel (P2). However, the ‘485 patent also indicates that “a core of soft material which is readily shaped into a springable shape” can form “a resilient interconnection element (spring element)” (col. 10, ll. 15-23) without having such a hard (i.e., spring/resilient) overcoat over most of the core length. In other words, the ‘485 patent specifies that the beginning core has an overcoat to either (1) establish the mechanical properties [i.e., resiliency] of the resulting composite interconnection element and /or (2) . . . “securely anchor the interconnection element to [a] terminal.” (Id. at 16-20 (emphasis added).) P5. This “springable shape” (P4), or equivalently, “spring shape,” includes a straight wire without bends (accord P2): As used herein, the term ‘spring shape’ refers to virtually any shape of an elongate element which will exhibit elastic Appeal 2011-010727 Reexamination Control 95/000,358 Patent 6,615,485 B2 7 (restorative) movement of an end (tip) of the elongate element with respect to a force applied to the tip. This [shape] includes . . . one or more bends, as well as substantially straight elongate elements. (Col. 5, ll. 53-59.) P6. The ‘485 patent lists suitable metal core materials for the invention as follows: Suitable materials for the core (112, 122, 132, 142) include, but are not limited to: gold, aluminum, copper, and their alloys. These materials are typically alloyed with small amounts of other metals to obtain desired physical properties, such as with beryllium, cadmium, silicon, magnesium, and the like. It is also possible to use silver, palladium, platinum; metals or alloys such as metals of the platinum group of elements. Solder constituted from lead, tin, indium, bismuth, cadmium, antimony and their alloys can be used. (Col. 12, ll. 37-46.) P7. And for the outer shell: Suitable materials for the shell (114, 124, 134, 144) include (and, as is discussed herein below, for the individual layers of a multi-layer shell), but are not limited to: nickel, and its alloys; copper, cobalt, iron, and their alloys; gold (especially hard gold) and silver, both of which exhibit excellent current-carrying capabilities and good contact resistivity characteristics; elements of the platinum group; noble metals; semi-noble metals and their alloys, particularly elements of the platinum group and their alloys; tungsten and molybdenum. In cases where a solder-like finish is desired, tin, lead, bismuth, indium and their alloys can also be used. (Col. 12, ll. 56-67.) P8. With reference to Figure 7 (which is similar to Figure 5 (P1) supra with one difference being the metal plate 702 discussed next in place of the wafer 508), the ‘485 patent describes aligning probe tips 524 to be Appeal 2011-010727 Reexamination Control 95/000,358 Patent 6,615,485 B2 8 planar with a wafer, using the test metal plate 702. These alignment alterations (using the metal plate 702) can be made using calculations either “on-line or off-line.” (Col. 31, l. 51.) Differential screws 538 (see Fig. 5 supra) are turned to adjust the orientation of the space transformer 506 (i.e., to align the tips of probes 524). (Col. 31, l. 28 to col. 32, l. 11.) P9. However, “[i]t is within the scope of the invention that any suitable mechanism can be employed for adjusting the orientation of the space transformer 506 - in other words, planarizing the tips 524a of probes 524.” (Col. 32, ll. 12-15.) P10. The ‘485 patent states that “it is within the scope of this invention that the interposer (504) can be omitted” but if so, achieving “coplanarity between the space transformer and probe card would be difficult.” (Col. 27, ll. 35-40). P11. Also, an undepicted “plurality of alignment features,” including a plurality of “pins,” ensure “accurate positioning of the front mounting plate 534 vis-à-vis the probe card 502.” (Col. 27, ll. 17-22.) P12. To form part of the probe assembly, screws 555 are extended through rear mounting plate 530, probe card 502, and front mounting plate 534. Then, the actuator mounting plate 532 is attached via screws 556, and spheres 560 and screws 538 are added into receptacles of the plate 532. (See col. 26, l. 51 to col. 27, l. 4; P1.) Appeal 2011-010727 Reexamination Control 95/000,358 Patent 6,615,485 B2 9 ANALYSIS 1. Claim Terms A). “elongate, resilient, probe elements,” claims 1 and 32; “compliant,” claim 1: Appellant argues at as follows: The ‘485 patent, at col. 15, lines 39-46, plainly states, “[a]s used herein, the term resilient, as applied to contact structures, implies contact structures (interconnection elements) that exhibit primarily elastic behavior in response to an applied load (contact force), and the term ‘compliant’ implies contact structures (interconnection elements) that exhibit both elastic and plastic behavior in response to an applied load (contact force). As used herein, a ‘compliant’ contact structure is a ‘resilient contact structure.’” (App. Br. 6 (quoting the ‘485 patent at col. 15, ll. 39-46) (italicized emphasis by Board, bold emphasis by Appellant).) The indented ‘485 patent passage equates “compliant” with “resilient,” but it is not clear why. Based on the passage, the reason could be that “compliant” and “resilient” each is either (1) plastic and elastic, (2) primarily elastic and plastic, or (3) primarily elastic. Setting this question aside, the term “elastic” has a well-established ordinary meaning: “1. capable of returning to its original length, shape, etc. after being stretched, deformed, or expanded. . . . 4. springing back or rebounding; springy; resilient. 5. Physics. of, pertaining to, or noting a body having the property of elasticity.” The Random House College Dictionary 424 (Rev. Ed. 1980). The term “elasticity” carries a similar ordinary meaning: “4. Physics. the property of a substance that enables it to change its length, volume or shape in direct response to a force and to recover its Appeal 2011-010727 Reexamination Control 95/000,358 Patent 6,615,485 B2 10 original form upon the removal of the force.” Id. The term “resilient” is similar: “1. springing back; rebounding. 2. Returning to the original form or position after being compressed, or stretched.” Id. at 1123. Materials have an “elastic limit” before which they are elastic and after which they are deformed. Id. at 424. The ‘485 patent indicates that, in terms of the claims and disclosure, an elongate shape and a metal material each contribute to resiliency. For example, as to shape alone, the ‘485 patent states that “‘spring shape’ refers to virtually any shape of an elongate element which will exhibit elastic (restorative) movement.” This “spring” (P5) or “springable” (P4) elastic restorative shape can be with or without bends (P2, P4). With respect to the materials and shape, the ‘485 patent employs an elongate composite structure having a hard outer shell to impart resiliency and a soft inner core. (P2, P4.) But the ‘485 patent also indicates that soft metals, generally not resilient enough, can be used if employed in a “springable shape,” even if not coated along the entire probe length with a hard outer shell to add resiliency. (See P4, P7). For example, the ‘485 patent describes a soft core shaped as wire and coated only at its base with a hard metal to attach the wire to a device. This short hard outer coat “anchor[s]” the wire but does not add “mechanical properties” (i.e., resiliency). (P4). Thus, while the ‘485 patent describes “[s]oft materials, such as gold,” as “generally lack[ing] sufficient resiliency to function as springs” because they “exhibit primarily plastic, rather than elastic deformation,” (col. 6, ll. 58-61), the discussion supra shows that a soft material, including gold, properly shaped into a spring shape, such as a straight thin elongate shape, does exhibit sufficient resiliency. (P2, P4-P7). The ‘485 patent also Appeal 2011-010727 Reexamination Control 95/000,358 Patent 6,615,485 B2 11 includes “any suitable resilient contact structures . . . including tabs [anchored] (ribbons) of phospor bronze material or the like.” (P2 (emphasis added).) The ‘485 patent lists many other suitable metal materials (P6, P7). The ‘485 patent therefore indicates that a wide range of metal wires or ribbons ranging from soft metals to hard metals and having a spring shape (e.g., elongated or elongated with bends) exhibit sufficient resiliency as defined in the claims and ‘485 patent. 1 Relying on part of the quoted passage supra, Appellant urges (for at least one rejection) that resilient means “primarily elastic behavior in response to an applied load or contact force.” (See App. Br. 16 (quoting the ‘485 patent passage discussed supra).) Since resilient normally means “elastic,” according to the plain dictionary meaning supra, Appellant’s proffered definition seems to broaden this plain meaning, because “primarily elastic” appears to mean something less than totally elastic (or something more elastic than plastic). In the context here, pursuant to Appellant’s urging and the evidence of record, a resilient probe “primarily” has a restorative or elastic ability, i.e., constitutes a spring with the ability to return “primarily” to its original position after the probe presses against a wafer or other similar device under test. 2 1 By also specifically mentioning, “gold (especially hard gold),” (P7), as a material for an outer shell, the ‘485 patent bolsters the interpretation here that, in light of the ‘485 patent, most, if not all, elongate gold probes, including soft gold elongate probes, satisfy the claimed resilient element. 2 For a simple example, slightly bending a paper clip end shows it springs back unless it is bent too far (i.e., past its elastic limit). Appeal 2011-010727 Reexamination Control 95/000,358 Patent 6,615,485 B2 12 B). “providing a probe substrate moveably affixed to said probe card” and “aligning tips of said probe elements by altering an orientation of said probe substrate with respect to said probe card,” claim 32: Appellant does not direct attention to where the term “movably affixed” occurs in the ‘485 patent. Appellant indicates that balls 546 and screws 538 render the probe substrate “movably affixed.” (App. Br. 2-3 (citing ‘485 patent at col. 26, ll. 16-48).) Appellant also indicates that these same balls and screws provide mechanical support for the “aligning probe tips” step. (Id. at 3 (citing col. 26, ll. 16-48; col. 30, ll. 30-56).) The ‘485 patent does indicate that one way to align the probe tips 524 is with the screws 538, which are turned to alter the orientation of the probe substrate 506. (See P1, P8.) But, the ‘485 patent also indicates that “any suitable mechanism” can be used to adjust the probe substrate 506 orientation and align the probe tips (P9) and discusses other “alignment features” such as pins (P11). 2. Claims 32-38 and 41 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on KIMM, 3 or JP ‘659 4 ; and claims 1-4, 18, 19, 23-25, 29, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, and 41 as anticipated based on JP ‘406 5 The Examiner and Respondent maintain that KIMM discloses bumps on a thin film membrane as depicted in Figure 6 and that such bumps constitute elongate resilient probe elements. (Resp. Br. 13; RAN 15.) The JP ‘659 and JP ‘406 prior art rejections present a similar issue. That is, the 3 Membrane Probe Card, Development of Manufacturing Process for Membrane Probe Card, Korean Inst. of Mach. and Materials (1992). 4 JP 3-65659 (Mar. 20, 1991). 5 JP 5-29406 (Feb. 5, 1993). Appeal 2011-010727 Reexamination Control 95/000,358 Patent 6,615,485 B2 13 Examiner (RAN 13, 26) and Respondent (Resp. Br. 12, 24) rely respectively on bumps 4 or 14 in those references as the “elongate resilient probe elements” recited in claim 32. Appellant argues that the Examiner has not explained how the bumps in any of these references are elongate and resilient. (See App. Br. 9-10, 19-20; App. Reb. Br. 4-5, 7.) The argument is persuasive. No adequate explanation, if any, is provided to show how such bumps satisfy the resilient portion of the claimed element. Neither Respondent nor the Examiner explains whether the bumps would primarily spring back after being compressed according to the definition of “resilient,” which is equivalent to “compliant,” as interpreted supra. (See Claim Terms). Even if the bumps could broadly be interpreted as elongate as the rejections urge, the Examiner provides insufficient evidence to show that these bumps are sufficiently elongate (or have the requisite material in combination therewith) so as to be considered sufficiently spring shaped to impart resiliency or primary elastic behavior. (See id.). Respondent’s reliance on the Taber Declaration does not help (see e.g., Resp. Br. 13) because it does not provide a sufficient foundation, in light of the ‘485 patent, showing how such bumps constitute “elongate, resilient, probe elements.” As such, Appellant has shown error in the anticipation rejections based on KIMM, JP ‘659, and JP ‘406. Based on the foregoing discussion, the anticipation rejections of claims 32-38 and 41 based on KIMM and JP ‘659, and claims 1-4, 18, 19, 23-25, 29, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, and 41based on JP ‘406, are not sustained. Appeal 2011-010727 Reexamination Control 95/000,358 Patent 6,615,485 B2 14 3. Claims 1-9, 12, and 15, and claims 1-7, 12, 15, and 30, as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) respectively based on JP ‘990 6 and Lum. 7 Appellant argues that Lum’s balls 78 and pads, and JP ‘990’s ceramic substrate 101, do not constitute “compliant interconnection structure[s]” as recited in claim 1. (App. Br. 30, 31.) Based on the discussion supra, compliant means resilient (see Claim Terms), and the Examiner and Respondent fail to show how a group of generic balls or a ceramic substrate satisfies that element. Therefore, the anticipation rejections of claims 1-9, 12 and 15 based on JP ‘990, and claims 1-7, 12, 15, and 30 based on Lum, are not sustained. 4. Claims 1-9, 12, 15, and 29 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Okubo 8 Appellant argues that Okubu’s “elastic sheet 24” (see Okubo Fig. 2) does not constitute a “compliant interconnection structure” because “the ‘485 claims to [sic: do] not cover structures that do not yield to achieve coplanarity between a probe card and a probe substrate.” (App. Br. 34) Appellant also argues “Okubo does not disclose maintaining electrical connection between” the claimed probe substrate [i.e., 11 in Okubo Fig. 2] and claimed probe card (i.e., 22 at id.) “throughout the probe substrate’s range of adjustment.” (App. Br. 34 (citing the ‘485 patent).) Appellant does not dispute that Okubu’s “elastic sheet 24” (col. 3, l. 9) is compliant, and as Respondent persuasively maintains “one of skill in 6 JP 6-50990 (Feb. 25, 1994). 7 Lum et al., U.S. 5,534,784 (July 9, 1996). 8 Okubo et al., U.S. 4,518,914 (May 21, 1985). Appeal 2011-010727 Reexamination Control 95/000,358 Patent 6,615,485 B2 15 the art would understand elastic sheet 24 to be compliant.” (Resp. Br. 26.) As Respondent also maintains, claim 1 does not require or recite “a range of adjustment” or a “coplanarity” relationship. (Id.) It follows that claim 1 also does not require maintaining electrical connection throughout any such range. As such, Appellant fails to show error in the rejection of claim 1. Appellant also argues that claim 15 requires a demountable compliant interconnection element, and Okubo fails to show that the pins 26, holding the compliant interconnection sheet 24, are “demountable.” (App. Br. 34.) Based on Okubo’s Figure 2 and the accompanying description which reveals nothing special about such generically depicted pins 26, skilled artisans would have understood that the pins, which appear to be readily accessible, are detachable, either by drilling or otherwise, thereby rendering the compliant structure “demountable” as set forth in claim 15. (See Resp. Br. 26.) Based on the foregoing discussion, the anticipation rejection of claims 1 and 15 is sustained, as is the rejection of clams 2-9, 12, and 29 which were not separately argued. 5. Claims 1-7, 12, 15, 18-25, 30 and 32-38 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Bove. 9 With respect to claim 1, Appellant’s argument that the ceramic substrate 23 in Bove does not constitute a compliant interconnection structure as claim 1 requires (App. Br. 6) shows error in the Examiner’s finding to the contrary for reasons similar to those explained supra in Sections 1-3 supra. 9 Bove, U.S. 3,806,801 (April 23, 1974). Appeal 2011-010727 Reexamination Control 95/000,358 Patent 6,615,485 B2 16 Turning to claim 32, Appellant’s argument with respect to claim 1 that Bove’s “random, uncontrolled, unguided movement of the probe contactor 10 when Bove’s unit is being assembled” via the nuts, screws and dowel pins shows that there is no substantive disagreement that some tip alignment occurs during assembly. (See App. Br. 8.) And contrary to the argument, such alignment would not be random because the purpose of Bove’s machine is to provide aligned probe tips for wafer inspection. (See Bove Abstract, Fig. 1.) Bove “provid[es] the probe substrate [10 ,11] movably affixed to said probe card 30” as claim 32 requires by providing the nuts 34 and threaded dowel pins 31 (Fig. 9) which can be adjusted to movably affix the substrate with respect to the card. (See IP Req. 34; RAN 9.) Contrary to implied arguments by Appellant (see App. Br. 7 (citing Bove col. 5, ll. 48-58)), the recited step of “aligning tips of said probe elements by altering an orientation of said probe substrate with respect to said card” can occur before (or during, or after) the step of “providing a probe substrate movably affixed to said probe card.” (See P8, P9, Claim Terms (the ‘485 patent does not preclude alignment from occurring during assembly).) As such, aligning of Bove’s probe substrate 11 and probe 15 tips (see col. 5, ll. 48-58) occur as the assembler implicitly must tilt either the probe substrate 11 or probe card 30 to mount the two together, and thereafter, the nuts 34 and pins 31 render the probe substrate 11 movably affixed to the probe card 30 (see Fig. 1) - affixed by the nut, and movably affixed as it tightens along the pins and bolts (or thereafter loosens). Also, after providing the movably affixed substrate with the threaded pin 33 and nut 34, during nut tightening (and during “electrical communication” - claim 32), Appeal 2011-010727 Reexamination Control 95/000,358 Patent 6,615,485 B2 17 the probe 15 tips would be aligning as claimed due to slight changes in the (e.g., off-horizontal) relative orientation of the probe card or substrate. (See IP Req. 36-37.) The ‘485 patent includes similar alignment pins and screws 555. (P1, P11, P12, Claim Terms, note 13.) With respect to claim 22, Bove’s threaded pins and nuts satisfy Appellant’s definition of a differential screw - i.e., one “configured to provide an adjustment function.” (App .Br. 8.) Bove’s probe substrate and card are adjusted by tightening and loosening the pins and nuts. The nuts constitute moveable elements as recited in claims 19 and 33. Finally, according to the ‘485 patent, “[i]t is within the scope of the invention that any suitable mechanism can be employed for adjusting the orientation of the space transfer - in other words, planarizing the tips 524a of probes 524.” (P9.) Based on the ‘485 patent, the generically claimed aligning step, devoid of specific claimed structure, encompasses the above- described assembly produced aligning procedures in Bove. And since the ‘485 patent discloses performing the aligning step with structure involved in the “movably affixed” elements (i.e., screws and balls, see supra Claim Terms), “any suitable mechanism” such as other screws or pins, also can be employed to implement the aligning step. Based on the foregoing discussion, the rejection of claims 1-7, 12, 15, 18-25, and 30 is not sustained, but the rejection of claims 32-38 is sustained. Appeal 2011-010727 Reexamination Control 95/000,358 Patent 6,615,485 B2 18 6. Claims 1-12, 15, 18, 19, 23-25, 29, 30, 32, 33, 36-38 and 41 anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Abe. 10 Abe’s Figure 8 appears below: Abe’s Figure 8 depicts probes 72 as thin elongate conductive structures supported at a fulcrum point at supporting member 73. Appellant argues that Abe’s probes 72 do not qualify as elongate, resilient probe elements as claims 1 and 32 require. (App. Br. 21.) Appellant explains that Figure 8 “evidences that probes 72 require the supporting member [73] to gain resiliency.” (Id.) This argument does not help Appellant. Rather, it signifies that Abe’s probes are resilient and have the disputed property. In Abe’s system, wafer W rises until it contacts the probes 72 to perform multiple tests on different IC chips. (Abe, col. 7, ll. 54-56; RAN 28 10 Abe et al., U.S. 5,521,522 (May 28, 1996). Appeal 2011-010727 Reexamination Control 95/000,358 Patent 6,615,485 B2 19 (citing Abe’s probes 72 as testing a plurality of IC chips 200 on wafer W).) Thus, Abe’s depicted needle probes implicitly restore to their original position to test successive IC chips: Skilled artisans would have recognized that such a probe bends and springs back around the fulcrum point at support 73; otherwise, the probe would be useless after one IC chip test. (See e.g. Abe, col. 8, ll. 8-9) (guaranteeing “good reproducibility”).) Additionally, the ‘485 patent indicates that a needle shape, and especially a conductive (i.e., implicitly metal) “cantilever beam,” creates “the simplest of spring shapes.” (P2, see also P4, Claim Terms.) Abe’s simple cantilever probe structure, a spring structure according to the ‘485 patent (see P2, P4, P5), by itself provides prima facie evidence that Abe’s probes exhibit “primarily elastic behavior in response to an applied load,” thereby satisfying Appellant’s proposed definition of “resilient.” (See Claim Terms.) Under the circumstances described here, i.e., the evidence of the same or similar structure of a conductive cantilevered probe in the same or similar environment of testing multiple IC chips on wafers, where the ‘485 patent describes such cantilever probe structures as springs and describes springs as resilient, the burden shifts to Appellant to show that Abe’s probes lack the disputed function as claimed. “Where, as here, the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of [the] claimed product.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977); see also In re King, 801 F.2d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appellant’s failure to carry this burden constitutes a failure to show error in Appeal 2011-010727 Reexamination Control 95/000,358 Patent 6,615,485 B2 20 the Examiner’s finding that Abe’s probes 72 depicted in Figure 8 are resilient. (RAN 28, 30 (adopting Requestor’s proposed rejection, see IC Req. 76).) Turning to other claim limitations, the Examiner finds that the print substrate 71, depicted supra, constitutes the claimed probe substrate having the claimed resilient probe elements 72 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “probe substrate 7”). 11 The board 92 (see Abe Fig. 8) constitutes the claimed probe card having a plurality of electrical contacts. The contact ring 50 (see id.) having extensible and retractable bellows 58 constitutes the claimed interconnection structure. (See RAN 28-29.) (The Figure 8 probe substrate 7 can substitute for the board 5 in Figure 1.) (See Abe, col. 6, ll. 18-40; IP Req. 81-82.) With further respect to claim 1, Appellant argues that Abe does not disclose a “coplanarity” relationship between the probe card and probe substrate. (See P10.) According to Appellant, this alleged failure shows that Abe fails to disclose the “compliant interconnection structure” recited in claim 1. (App. Br. 22.) The argument fails to show error because the coplanar relationship is not claimed, explicitly or implicitly. Appellant does not direct attention to where in the ‘485 patent the broad generic claim term, “compliant interconnection structure,” implicitly invokes the relationship (or structure). To the contrary, if the relationship (or structure) is implicit, the ‘485 patent indicates it would be implicit to an “interposer”; moreover, the 11 Abe’s probe card 7, not to be confused with the claimed probe card, includes print substrate 71. (Abe, col. 7, ll. 6, 32-38; Fig. 8.) The Examiner refers to the print substrate 71 as the claimed probe substrate, as it includes probes 72. Appeal 2011-010727 Reexamination Control 95/000,358 Patent 6,615,485 B2 21 interposer could be omitted and coplanarity implemented with another structure (even though that “would be difficult”). (P10.) The failure to recite the interposer in claim 32 indicates a broader intention. Addressing the “movably affixed” limitation in claim 32, the Examiner, adopting Respondent’s proposed rejection, finds that the separate bellows structures 58 in the compliant interconnection structure 50 move freely to alter the orientation of the probe substrate 7 relative to the probe card 92. (See RAN 30; IC Req. 81, Abe Figs. 1, 8.) Appellant counters that since the probe substrate 7 freely moves as the bellows expand and contract, the probe substrate is not “movably affixed” - i.e., it is movable, but not fixed. (App. Br. 22.) Appellant’s argument fails to show error. Appellant does not point to structure in the ‘485 patent showing what “affixed” means. Describing support for the “movably affixed” element, Appellant lists disclosed elements 506, 546, 548, 536, and 538 and cites to column 26, lines 16-48 in the ‘485 patent. But that disclosure logically pertains not to how the probe substrate is “affixed,” but to how it is movable - i.e., with adjusting screw and ball mechanism 536, 538, 546, 548, and probe substrate 506. (See P1, P10; App. Br. 6-7.) As to “affixed,” the wafer 508 presses the probe substrate 506 upward against the probe card 502. (See P1.) Also, screws 555 and 542 hold the probe card 502 to the probe substrate 506, and perhaps a skilled artisan might otherwise look to these screws to support or interpret the “affixing” element, but Appellant does not mention these screws for support or Appeal 2011-010727 Reexamination Control 95/000,358 Patent 6,615,485 B2 22 interpretation. 12 And, even these holding screws 555 and 542 (as opposed to the adjusting screws 538), apparently allow some movement, i.e., downward tilting adjustment with the adjusting screws 538, because they are installed before the adjusting mechanism. (P12.) In other words, without the implied upward wafer mechanism pressure (see P1 - Figure 5 shows an upside down probe assembly), gravity seemingly would allow one side of the probe substrate 506 (the side opposite spheres 546) to droop downward slightly, while the screws 555 hold it on the other side. 13 And as noted, Appellant does not rely on the screws 555 and 542 to show support for the term “affixing.” In light of the ‘485 patent and Appellant’s arguments, Abe’s probe substrate 7 is “movably affixed” to probe card 92 because wafer W and wafer chuck 2 push probe substrates (5, 7) upward toward the probe substrate 92, fixing the two in a horizontal and vertical relationship according to the wafer and bellows forces. (See Abe, Fig. 1.) Before the wafer raises, the pressure of the bellows working with rings 23, 24 and test head 90 presses the probe substrate (5, 7) and probe card 92 to another position, an at rest fixed position. (See Abe Fig. 1.) 12 While not depicted as such, screws 555 penetrate into front mounting plate 534. (See P12 and Fig. 5, P1.) 13 It is conceivable that there would be no such downward play if screws 555 were also on the left-hand side of Figure 5, but this is not depicted or described. And without downward play, it is not clear how the adjusting mechanism 532, 536, 538 could function. Screws 555 on one or both sides would have to be backed out to provide and allow for such downward play and adjustment, but the actuator mounting plate 532 appears to cover even the depicted screws 555 (i.e., precluding such backing out absent other undepicted access like holes in the plate 532 to provide screw 555 access). Appeal 2011-010727 Reexamination Control 95/000,358 Patent 6,615,485 B2 23 Appellant does not dispute this at-rest fixed position: Respondent points to an earlier response by the patent owner in which the owner essentially agrees that the probe substrate 7 is “arguably biased to an at-rest position by contact elements 57a, 57b of contact ring 50, but [is] otherwise free to move.” (Patent Owner’s Amend. and Resp. 21 filed May 18, 2009 (“A&R”)(cited at Resp. Br. 19.).) Appellant implicitly characterizes this at- rest position as a first fixed position, i.e., stating that the probe substrate is not “moveable from the [first] at-rest position to another fixed position.” (App. Br. 22-23.) In other words, Appellant appears to agree that Abe’s at-rest position (i.e., before the wafer moves upward) renders the probe substrate fixed at one position. Contrary to Appellant’s central argument, “movably affixed” does not require another (second) fixed positions, rather, it requires the ability to move from at least one fixed position. And in any case, in light of the ‘485 patent and Appellant’s arguments pertaining to “affixed” as discussed supra, Abe’s wafer stage 2 upward force, counteracted by the bellows structure 50, pins the probe substrate 7 relative to the probe card 92 to a second fixed position, thereby satisfying this more narrow interpretation of claim 32. This interpretation addresses Appellant’s unclear argument supra which defines “fixed” by “moveable” - Abe’s wafer W moves the probe substrate 5 or 7 from its first (at-rest) position upward to its second fixed position (against the compressible bellows 58). Regarding the “aligning” step in claim 32, Appellant maintains that “[t]he purported Abe alignment alteration does occur after wafer contact.” (A&R 21; accord App.Br. 23.) This statement concedes alignment and the moveable elements. In other words, Abe’s probe assembly automatically Appeal 2011-010727 Reexamination Control 95/000,358 Patent 6,615,485 B2 24 aligns probe 72 tips while the tips contact the wafer (i.e., while the bellows 58 compress and expand). Contrary to Appellant’s argument (App. Br. 22), claim 32 does not require the recited tip alignment to occur prior to making probe to wafer contact. In other words, and as discussed elsewhere in this opinion (see infra note 16, supra Claim Terms), claim 32 does not logically require the “bringing said tips into contact” step to occur after the aligning step and the claim language can be satisfied by simultaneously performing the recited steps. 14 “It is within the scope of the invention that any suitable mechanism can be employed for adjusting the orientation of the space transfer - in other words, planarizing the tips 524a of probes 524.” (P9.) Based on the ‘485 patent, the generically claimed aligning tip step, devoid of claimed structure, embraces Abe’s automatic tip alignment. Based on the foregoing discussion, the anticipation rejection based on Abe of argued claims 1 and 32, and claims 2-12, 15, 18, 19, 23-25, 29, 30, 33, 36-38, and 41, not separately argued, is sustained. 14 See Interactive Gift Express Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1342-1343 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (holding no order in method steps required); Altris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Circ. 2003)(citing Interactive Gift, reversing trial court, and holding steps not required to be in order written if they can be logically performed in another order). Appeal 2011-010727 Reexamination Control 95/000,358 Patent 6,615,485 B2 25 7. Claims 1-12, 15, 18-25, 29, 30, 32-38, 41, and 42 stand rejected as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Beaman. 15 Appellant’s arguments raise the similar issues of whether Beaman discloses resilient conductors as set forth in claim 1 and the providing and aligning steps of claim 32. Additional Facts - Beaman B1. Beaman describes embedding “elongated conductors . . . preferably wires” (col. 5, l. 28) in an elastomer and allowing the wires to “flex” during probing of pads on wafer 50 circuit devices 48 (col. 3, ll. 44- 49) as follows: The compliance of the cured elastomer is selected for the probe application. Where solder mounds are probed a more rigid elastomer is used so that the probe tips are pushed into the solder mounds[sic,] where a gold coated aluminum pad is being probed a more compliant elastomer material is used to permit the wires to flex under pressure so that the probe ends in contact with the pad will move to wipe over the pad so that good electrical contact is made therewith. Beaman (col. 7, ll. 12-20 (emphasis added).) B2. With respect to Figure 3, an undepicted screw extends at location 90 through clamping arrangement 82 and 84 to upper substrate 68, thereby holding substrate 54 to substrate 68 with compliant connector 76 (having elastomeric material 78) “squeezed” (col. 4, l. 58) therebetween. (Col. 5, ll. 4-16; col. 4, ll. 43-48.) 15 Beamon et al., U.S. 5,635,846 (June 3 1997, filed April 30, 1993). Appeal 2011-010727 Reexamination Control 95/000,358 Patent 6,615,485 B2 26 Discussion Appellant argues that Beaman’s wire probes 42 are not “resilient” as claims 1 and 32 require because Beaman does not disclose that they exhibit primarily elastic behavior in response to an applied load. (App. Br. 15-16.) Appellant relies on Beaman’s passage quoted supra (B1) which shows the wires 42 are embedded in an elastomeric material 44 (see Fig. 5) so that “the wires themselves” “exhibit plasticity” and are not resilient. (See App. Br. 16 (citing Beaman at col. 7, ll. 11-20).) The Beaman passage relied upon by Appellant evidences resiliency because it states that the “wires . . . flex under pressure.” (B1.) The “elongated conductors” 42 (col. 5, l. 28) comprise thin wires (0.001 - 0.005 inches), with examples of a Pt or palladium (Pd) core having, for example, a Ni coating (id. at ll. 61-67). Such materials in combination with an elongated cantilevered spring shape result in similar probe to a preferred embodiment in the ‘485 patent having an Au inner core and Ni outer core. (See P2.) The ‘485 patent also lists Au, Pt, and Pd, indicating their equivalency as core materials. (P6.) It follows that Beaman’s wires constitute resilient probes as claimed, and as the Examiner finds and Respondent argues. (Resp. Br. 16.; RAN 20.) Also, this same or similar structure shifts the burden under Best and King to Appellant show that Beaman’s elongated, cantilevered, flexible, Pt/Ni wires are not resilient as claimed. Appellant also argues that Beaman does not disclose a compliant interconnection structure as recited in claim 1. (App. Br. 16.) As Respondent explains, Appellant’s reliance on the unclaimed coplanarity relationship fails to show. (Resp. Br. 16.) Appellant’s reference to a Appeal 2011-010727 Reexamination Control 95/000,358 Patent 6,615,485 B2 27 “principal function of the interposer” (App. Br. 17 (emphasis added)) to obtain coplanarity does not help Appellant, but rather indicates that the claimed “compliant interconnection structure” is broader and does not implicitly require the relationship (or structure). (See Abe discussion supra.) Appellant also contends with respect to claims 5-7 that Beaman’s elastomeric connector 76, the compliant interconnection element in claims 1 and 5-7 identified by the Examiner, fails to include “elongate interconnection elements extending from opposing surfaces of said interconnection structure” as claim 5 recites. (See App. Br. 17.) The Examiner reads the recited interconnection elements onto Beaman’s electrical conductors 85 with protuberances 86 and 88. (RAN 22.) Beaman supports the Examiner. Beaman depicts these conductors as elongate, and describes them as “extending from surface 81 to surface 83” of the compliant interconnection element 76 (comprising elastomer 78) to form protuberances 86 and 88 poking out of the elastomer 78. (Beaman, Fig. 4, col. 4, ll. 43-57). This description contradicts Appellant’s contention because the elongate conductors extend internally from one opposing surface to the other, and under an alternative claim interpretation, they also extend outwardly from the opposing surfaces of elastomer 78 as evidenced by their ends, protuberances, 86 and 88. Appellant’s arguments also fail to show error in the Examiner’s findings with respect to claim 32. As Respondent explains, claim 32 is broad enough to encompass assembling a structure such as Beaman’s. Claim 32 recites “a method for producing a tested semiconductor device comprising: providing a probe card . . . providing a probe substrate movably affixed . . . aligning [probe element] tips,” followed by steps of “providing a Appeal 2011-010727 Reexamination Control 95/000,358 Patent 6,615,485 B2 28 semiconductor device, bringing said tips into contact with said semiconductor device; and testing said semiconductor device.” The first few listed steps simply provide the probe testing device, and reasonably encompass steps for assembling that device, and not necessarily in any particular order. By adjusting Beaman’s screws extending through member 84 and into substrate 68, the relative orientation of the probe substrate 60 vis-à-vis the probe card 68/70 would change as the compliant structure 76 is “squeezed.” (See B2). The squeezing of compliant structure 76 implies that probe substrate 60 moves as the compliant structure 76 against it compresses and expands. (See Beaman, Fig. 3.) Assembling the apparatus with the screws constitutes “providing a probe substrate moveably affixed,” as claim 32 recites because the probe substrate would be both affixed (by the screws) and moving (during tightening and subsequent loosening thereof). Also, such assembly would include “aligning tips of said probe elements by altering an orientation of said probe substrate” because the probe element tips of conductors 42 would be getting aligned during this assembly - by the screws and squeezing described. Appellant maintains that this tip movement during assembly is “[a]t best . . . random, uncontrolled, unguided movement of the space transformer 54 [i.e., probe substrate 54, 60].” (App. Br. 18.) To the contrary, the final probe assembly in Beaman results in non-randomly aligned probe tips 42 so that the assembly can perform its intended function of accurately testing wafer dies. (See Beaman Fig. 3; Abstract.) Appellant’s arguments notwithstanding, this finding also satisfies claim 22, because Beaman’s “simple screws” do “provide an Appeal 2011-010727 Reexamination Control 95/000,358 Patent 6,615,485 B2 29 adjustment function,” thereby satisfying Appellant’s definition of a “differential screw.” (App. Br. 19.) Beaman alternatively satisfies the disputed “movably affixed” and aligning elements of claim 32 under an alternative finding: The compression and decompression of the compliant interconnection structure 76 during wafer testing coexists with probe substrate 60 movement during wafer testing. Appellant concedes that “[t]he asserted Beaman alignment alteration does occur after wafer contact,” but argues that such alignment is not within the claim scope. (App. Br. 15.) But claim 32 does not logically or otherwise require the step of aligning tips of said probe elements to be before or after the steps of providing a semiconductor device and bringing said tips into contact with said device. 16 (See also Interactive Gift, and Altris, note 14.) Based on the ‘485 patent, the generically claimed aligning step, devoid of claimed structure and embracing “any suitable mechanism” (P9), reads on Beaman’s assembly-produced or automatic alignment. 16 Appellant does not direct attention to sufficient evidence showing that the ‘485 patent requires the tip aligning step to occur before the tips contact the wafer. Appellant initially points to column 26, lines 16-48 and column 30, lines 30-56 to show support for the aligning step. (App. Br. 3.) But column 30 generally discusses aligning the probe tips using what amounts to a simulated wafer - a metal planar board. The ‘485 patent also discusses making calculations on-line or off-line (P8) and aligning tips “with any suitable mechanism” (P9). Based on the disclosure, skilled artisans reasonably would have envisioned orienting/adjusting the probe substrate and its tips using a wafer or a metal board. It follows that the ‘485 patent disclosure does not limit claim 32 to a step order which necessarily follows the listed order. Appeal 2011-010727 Reexamination Control 95/000,358 Patent 6,615,485 B2 30 Based on the foregoing discussion, the anticipation rejection based on Beaman of argued claims 1, 5-7, 22, and 32, and claims 2-4, 8-12, 15, 18-21, 23-25, 29, 30, 33-38, 41, and 42, not separately argued, is sustained. 8. Claims 1, 3, 4, 11, 18-25, and 32-38 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Barsotti. 17 The Examiner reads the recited “probe substrate” of claims 1 and 32 onto Barsotti’s probe head 14, and the claimed plurality of elongate resilient probe elements onto Barsotti’s combination of cantilever arms 52 (with limbs 54, 56) and bumps 40. (RAN 17). The Examiner also reads the “probe card” on circuit board 18, finding the bumps 40 to be in electrical communication with contact pads 82 on circuit board 18 as the claims require. (RAN 16-17.) (See Barsotti Figs. 1, 3A, 5.) As to the probe elements, Appellant argues that the Examiner’s findings constitute a “contrived combination” (App. Reb. Br. 5), reasoning that Barsotti’s “horizontal limb 54 and vertical limb are parts of a cantilevered arm 52 . . . and all of the foregoing are parts of a loading member 46,” and that “bumps 40, horizontal limb 54, and vertical limb clearly do not constitute a distinct structure.” (Id.) Appellant correctly notes that “bumps 40 are attached to conductor runs 34 on membrane 16” which is attached by adhesive to the loading member 46. (Id.) Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. Barsotti describes four distinct cantilevers all attached to the probe substrate 14 and each comprising a combination of one (of four) cantilever structures 54, 56, conductor runs 34, bumps 40, and one (of four) cut membrane portions 16. 17 Barsotti et al., U.S. 5,059,898 (Oct. 22, 1991). Appeal 2011-010727 Reexamination Control 95/000,358 Patent 6,615,485 B2 31 (Figs. 2G, 2H, 3B.) Each one of the four separately resilient and movable described distinct structures reasonably constitutes a distinct elongate resilient probe as recited in the disputed claims. The ‘485 patent encompasses “virtually any [elongate] shape” (P5) which creates spring action and specifically includes cantilever spring shapes. (P2; Claim Terms.) It contemplates insulative portions and includes elongate cantilever structures having bends, similar to the L-shaped cantilever probe structures in Barsotti. (Compare P3, P5 with Barsotti Figs. 1B, 2A, 2I.) Preferred embodiments in the ‘485 include composite structures (P4), but “any suitable resilient contact structures . . . can be employed” (see P2). Appellant does not direct attention to requisite evidence showing that the disputed claims require a unitary, integral, single piece probe, contrary to the implicit thrust of Appellant’s arguments. Even if the ‘485 patent discloses such probes, generic claims typically are not limited to any preferred embodiments. Contrary to similar arguments (App. Br. 12-13), claims 1 and 32 recite “a probe substrate . . . comprising a plurality of elongate, resilient probe elements,” which does not preclude Barsotti’s probe head 14 (“probe substrate”) as including or supporting the four elongate resilient cantilevered probe elements just described. The disputed claims do not preclude parts of the substrate from overlapping or touching parts of the resilient probe elements, as Appellant’s arguments imply (see Resp. Br. 15), but even if they do, Barsotti still satisfies the claims because the probe substrate 14 includes other separate substrate structure including the cover plate 100. Also, the portions of the frame 48 attached to the probe card 18 are non- cantilevered, further separating, like the plate 100, the above-discussed Appeal 2011-010727 Reexamination Control 95/000,358 Patent 6,615,485 B2 32 cantilevered (probe elements) and non-cantilevered (probe substrate) portions of the frame 48 as distinct structure. (See Barsotti, Figs. 3B, 5.) Appellant’s combined arguments reduce to the untenable assertion that Barsotti’s probes are not integral enough with some alleged substrate portions and are also too integral with other substrate portions. Shifting to another claim element, Appellant also argues that Barsotti’s neoprene or rubber insulating material does not constitute a compliant interconnection structure electrically connecting ones of said electrical contacts with ones of said probe elements. Appellant reasons that “Barsotti’s ‘strips of neoprene 90’ have nothing whatsoever to do with achieving coplanarity by yielding.” (App. Br. 14.) As Respondent maintains and as discussed supra with respect to the Abe and Beaman rejections, the claims do not require a coplanar relationship. (Resp. Br. 15.) And even if such coplanarity is required, Barsotti’s structure has coplanar portions between the probe substrate 14 and probe card 18. (See Barsotti, Figs. 1 and 5.) Appellant points out that Barsotti’s neoprene is insulating and does not meet the compliant interconnection structure recited in claim 32. (App. Br. 14.) Appellant does not particularly argue in the opening Brief that the recited “compliant interconnection structure” itself, or the compliant portion thereof, must be electrically conductive. In contrast, Appellant specifically presents this argument in the Reply Brief. (Compare Reply Br. 6 with App. Br. 14.) Assuming for the sake of argument that Appellant timely presents the argument by pointing out the known fact that neoprene is an insulator, claim 1 does not necessarily require the compliant structure to be electrically conducting. It recites “providing . . . a compliant interconnection structure Appeal 2011-010727 Reexamination Control 95/000,358 Patent 6,615,485 B2 33 electrically connecting ones of said electrical contacts with ones of said probe elements.” Forcing the electrical contacts into electrical contact with the probe elements as described in Barsotti reasonably constitutes electrically connecting them. Appellant’s description shows that Barsotti’s neoprene 90, a compliant interconnection structure, does that: It electrically connects electrical contacts (on probe card 18) to probe elements including, inter alia, bump 40, by pressing flexible film 16 containing contacts 38 against the probe card contacts. Appellant describes the operation in Barsotti as follows: When an electrical connection is made in Barsotti as contact pads 38 on lips 72 are pressed on … interface board 18, the neoprene 90 provides a compressive force, but does not function as an interconnection structure which in the ‘485 patent is something to achieve coplanarity between a probe card and a probe substrate by yielding. (App. Br. 14; accord Barsotti, col. 5, ll. 50- col. 6, l.3.) Relying on the ‘485 patent for support, Appellant indicates that the recited compliant interconnection structure includes insulative portions (insulative board 512 in interposer 504) and electrical portions (514, 516). (See P1; App. Br. 3; App. Br. 6 (relying on interposer 504).) It follows that, in light of the ‘485 patent, the step of “providing . . . a compliant interconnection structure electrically connecting . . . contacts with . . . probe elements” encompasses providing Barsotti’s insulative compliant neoprene electrically connecting the probe elements and electrical contacts together by forcing contact pads 38 on probe substrate 14 and 82 on probe card board 18 together. Appeal 2011-010727 Reexamination Control 95/000,358 Patent 6,615,485 B2 34 Alternatively, even if the term “compliant interconnection structure” requires an electrically conductive portion, it does not require the compliant portion thereof to be conductive. As just explained, the ‘485 patent discloses such a compliant electrically conductive portion in interposer 504, but the interposer also includes non-conductive rigid substrate structure 512, within which, somehow exists an implicit electrically connecting portion (i.e., connecting 514 to 516) which portion is not described either as compressive or non-compressive. (See P1.) It follows that the claimed interconnection structure is broad enough to read on Barsotti’s a combination of the non-conductive compliant neoprene 90 and the contact pads 38 on lip 72 of flexible sheet 16 (see Barsotti Fig. 2G). Under this alternative, the separate contact portion 38 of conductor run 34 on the folded part 72 of flexible membrane 16 (see col. 2, l. 66; Fig. 2G) is not deemed to be part of the claimed probe element, but is deemed to be part of the claimed compliant interconnection structure. 18 Based on the foregoing discussion, the anticipation rejection based on Barsotti of argued claims 1 and 32, and claims 3, 4, 11, 18-25, and 33-38 which were not argued separately, is sustained. 18 This conductor run portion 34, here deemed separate from the contact portion 38 of the interconnection structure, reasonably constitutes part of the elongate, resilient probe element 40 claimed. The separate contact portion 38 of the compliant interconnection structure would thus be integral with the probe substrate 18, which the ‘485 patent does not preclude. That is, in a similar fashion, the ‘485 patent allows for mounting of “contact structures comparable to 514 [i.e., part of the compliant interconnection structure] be mounted directly to the contact pads (520)” on the probe substrate 506. (‘485 patent, col. 37, ll. 37-40.) Appeal 2011-010727 Reexamination Control 95/000,358 Patent 6,615,485 B2 35 9. Claims 32-38, 41, and 42 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Evans. 19 Appellant’s argument that Evans’s probe substrate 13 is not disclosed as movably affixed to the probe card 10 lacks merit. (See App. Br. 23-24; Evans Fig. 2.) The head 15 moves in response to adjustment screws S1 to S4 which push the block 14, which in turn, pushes the probe substrate 13 (which carries the resilient spring probes F) downward. (See RAN 31; IP Req. 85; Evans Figs. 2, 7, 8.) Appellant indicates the wing portions of membrane 13 do not move. However, this claim construction argument does not show error. The film probe substrate 14 moves in the contactor zone Z (and adjacent portions thereto) and is affixed at the wing edges; therefore, it is “movably affixed” - i.e., movable in the center and affixed at the edges. (See Evans, Figs. 2, 3, 7, 8.) Appellant also argues that Evans employs “epoxy or the like” to fix the block 15 after the adjustment, but prior to attachment to the probe card 10. (See App. Br. 24 (citing Evans at col. 6, ll. 32-34.) Setting aside the epoxy for a moment, Evans states the purpose for the adjustable screws: The screws are adjustable to cause the contact block pressing down on the contactor zone to effect planarization of this zone so that it lies in parallel relation to the plane of the IC device under test, whereby the contact fingers cantilevered from the contactor zone exert uniform forces on the contact pads. (Evans, col. 5, ll. 13-18.) Thus, Evans discloses adjusting, and then using the epoxy apparently to hold the adjustment fixed. But contrary to Appellant’s argument, Evans 19 Evans, U.S. 5,355,079 (Oct. 11, 1994). Appeal 2011-010727 Reexamination Control 95/000,358 Patent 6,615,485 B2 36 does not disclose adjusting the contacts and then attaching the probe card 10, because the adjustment is made to ensure a parallel arrangement and contact with the IC under test, implying an almost completely assembled device (next to the IC under test) with a final epoxy step to hold the block 15 during IC testing. As further evidence, Evans’s probe assembly tests up to half a million IC devices (before the spring fingers wear out). (See Evans, col. 11, ll. 15-17.) Evans teaches that several factors require alignment, sometimes mere tolerance problems occur, but typically a chuck holding the IC device is out of alignment. To overcome these alignment and tolerance problems, “a necessary correction can be made by turning the screws . . . to effect the desired parallelism.” (Evans, col. 9, ll. 56-60.) As such, even if the epoxy is always used, before using it, the claimed requirement for “providing a movably affixed probe substrate” step is met, because the claim does not preclude providing the movably affixed substrate, and thereafter, holding the substrate unmovable (with epoxy or the like) to test millions of IC devices on wafers. In other words, the ‘485 patent, which describes similar adjustment screws (see P1, P8), does not preclude fixing the adjustment screws in place (with glue or otherwise) after the adjustments are made to ensure that the adjustments remain fixed during a test. Moreover, claim 9 in Evans indicates the epoxy need not be used in all cases, for the claim recites an adjustable assembly with no epoxy. (Evans, col. 14, ll. 1-10.) Implicitly, Evans’s probe assembly would be provided to customers without epoxy to allow customers to adjust it prior to IC tests. Appellant’s remaining arguments fail to show error in the Examiner’s findings in light of Requestor’s responses. The arguments largely track Appeal 2011-010727 Reexamination Control 95/000,358 Patent 6,615,485 B2 37 similar arguments related to the order of steps, and arguments related to “random, unguided movement.” (See App. Br. 24.) Appellant’s argument regarding claims 33-38 that adjustments to the head screws occur before assembly of the membrane lack merit for reasons noted above. (See App. Br. 25.) As discussed supra, Evans indicates that the adjustments take place after assembly to ensure planarization. Appellant’s argument that Evans does not meet the “more resilient” element in claim 42 because the probe’s outer shell material is harder, but not more resilient (App. Br. 25), lacks merit. As discussed supra (Claim Terms, P2, P4), the ‘485 patent evidences that harder metal materials are used to impart resiliency to the softer materials. Evan’s copper beryllium “spring fingers” probes, “plated with a highly conductive metal whose Rockwell hardness number is well above that of beryllium copper” such as “nickel” (col. 11, ll. 54-59), inherently satisfy the claimed limitation based on the ‘485 patent’s similar embodiments and teachings describing hardness as related to resiliency (P2, P6, P7). Appellant fails to carry the requisite burden under Best and King to show otherwise. Based on the foregoing discussion, the anticipation rejection based on Evans of claims 32, 33, and 42, and the rejection of claims 34, 38 and 41, not separately argued, is sustained. Appeal 2011-010727 Reexamination Control 95/000,358 Patent 6,615,485 B2 38 10. Claims 1-12, 15, 18-25, 30-38, 41 and 42 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Leedy. 20 Appellant’s arguments (App. Br. 25-29) fail to show error in the rejection as proposed by Requestor (IP Req. 87-94) which the Examiner adopted (RAN 32-35). The Examiner’s findings and Requestor’s proposed rejection and responses on appeal relying on Leedy’s Figure 34 are hereby adopted and incorporated by reference. The thrust of the arguments raised by Appellant with respect to claims 1 and 32 largely track similar arguments involving the claimed order of steps, coplanarity, movably affixed, random movement, and alignment and orientation. The applicable related reasoning and claim construction supra is adopted and incorporated herein by reference. With respect to claim 1, Appellant argues that the Examiner “failed to show where [Leedy’s Figure 34] supposedly incudes a probe card, a probe substrate, compliant interconnection structure, and resilient probe elements.” (App. Br. 25.) But as indicated, the Examiner largely repeated and “adopted essentially as proposed in the Request” (RAN 35), the Requestor’s proposed rejection which specifically matches these claim elements with Leedy’s Figure 34: i.e., inter alia, probe substrate 522/516, compliant interconnection structure 524, probe card 512, and resilient probe elements (Leedy Figs. 17b-26). (See IP Req. 88 (providing similar and further explanation).) Appellant acknowledges some of these findings and argues to the effect that “renam[ing]” elements cannot satisfy the claims. (App. Br. 27, n. 20 Leedy, U.S. 5,225,771 (July 6, 1993). Appeal 2011-010727 Reexamination Control 95/000,358 Patent 6,615,485 B2 39 10.) Such an argument fails to satisfy the burden of showing error. Appellant cannot avoid the prior art because it uses different nomenclature than the claims, especially here, where Appellant provides different claim names for some of the disclosed elements (e.g., probe substrate for space transformer 506, etc.). (See P1, P9.) Appellant’s arguments imply that Leedy does not satisfy claims 18 and 32 because electrical connection between the probe card 512 and probe substrate 522 does not occur at the same time as the required substrate movement and orientation - i.e., while the bolts 538 and 536 are being tightened. (See App. Br. 27-28.) Appellant’s argument lacks factual support and ignores the compliant nature of Leedy’s “elastomeric contact[s] 520 or alternate “compressible [Pogo] . . . contacts” (Leedy, col. 22, ll. 1-10) which provide movement in the probe substrate 522, including in its orientation relative to the probe card 512 plane, during this bolt tightening. (See Leedy Fig. 34.) As the Examiner finds, Leedy’s Figure 34 indicates that bolts 536 and 538 can be employed to produce both probe card 512 and probe substrate 522 (with 516) movement and relative orientation. (See RAN 34 (describing relative probe and substrate movement due to bolts 536).) This movement during tightening or loosening of the bolts (i.e., during initial assembly or thereafter for adjustments) satisfies the “movably affixed” element in claims 1 and 32 and the “aligning tips” element in claim 32. Subsequent responsive movement of probe substrate 522 during wafer testing also satisfies the elements. Appellant’s arguments fail to show error in the Examiner’s findings. Appeal 2011-010727 Reexamination Control 95/000,358 Patent 6,615,485 B2 40 Appellant’s argument with respect to claim 22 that Leedy’s bolts are not differential screws lacks merit. Figure 34 shows spaces and a screw receptacle for bolt 536 indicating it satisfies Appellant’s definition, i.e., it “provid[es] an adjustment mechanism.” (App. Br. 29.) With respect to claims 5-7, contrary to Appellant’s arguments (App. Br. 29), Leedy discloses pogo contact “pins” (col. 22, ll. 6), thereby constituting elongate interconnection elements extending from opposing surfaces. Alternatively, the elastomeric contacts 520 necessarily connect through the compliant interconnection structure substrate 524, constituting elongate interconnection elements, since the device under test is electrically connected from the probe substrate 522, through the compliant interconnection structure 524, and then to the probe card 512 for IC testing. (See RAN 33; Leedy, col. 21, l. 68 to col. 22, l. 12; Fig. 34.) The ‘485 patent similarly fails explicitly to depict the conductive connection between 514 and 516 through the substrate 512 (see P1), thereby indicating that skilled artisans would have understood an implicit opening in Leedy’s similar conductive pin arrangement through the board 524 to implement a functional IC test. With respect to claims 30 and 42, Leedy discloses gold plating on inner core layer 342 having a coated tip 338 of tungsten. (Leedy, col. 12, ll. 20-34; Fig. 19a; RAN 34 (citing Leedy, col.12, ll. 16-34, Fig. 19a).) Given that the ‘485 patent describes using a gold core with a tungsten coating (P2, P6, P7), Appellant bears the burden, not carried here, under Best and King to show that Leedy’s tungsten layer is not more resilient than gold. On the other hand, the Examiner fails to make a prima facie showing of anticipation with respect to claims 10 and 11 so that Appellant’s argument Appeal 2011-010727 Reexamination Control 95/000,358 Patent 6,615,485 B2 41 that Leedy does not show the claimed two layers for the interconnection elements shows Examiner error. (App. Br. 29; RAN 33-34.) Based on the foregoing discussion, the anticipation rejection based on Leedy of claims 1-9, 12, 15, 18-25, 30-38, 41, and 42 is sustained, and the anticipation rejection of claims 10 and 11 is not. 11. Claims 9 and 10 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Leedy and Beaman. Appellant’s arguments rely on unpersuasive arguments addressed supra with respect to independent claims 1 and 5 regarding Leedy. (App. Br. 41-42.) Contrary to Appellant’s other argument, the Examiner correctly finds that Beaman discloses a core coated by a more resilient (i.e., harder) metal. (See RAN 22 (citing Beaman, col. 4, ll.27-39, and the incorporation by reference of U.S. Pat. No. 5,371,654 at col. 8, ll. 20-49 to teach the details of interconnection element core inter alia, of a Pd embodiment coated with inter alia, Ni).) Appellant does not challenge this finding in a meaningful way. 21 Similar to the discussion supra involving the anticipation rejection based on the same materials in Beaman employed in the resilient probes, Appellant has not carried the requisite burden under Best and King to show error in the finding that Beaman’s Ni outer coating is inherently more 21 The Examiner makes this finding under the anticipation rejection based on Beamon of claims 10-11 (RAN 22-23), which Appellant does not challenge. The Examiner then implicitly refers to this finding in the instant obviousness rejection. (See RAN 61 (citing col. 8, ll. 20-49).) It is apparent, based on the record (i.e., RAN 22-23), that the Examiner was referring to the ‘654 patent at column 8, lines 20-49, incorporated by reference in Beamon, in both instances. Appeal 2011-010727 Reexamination Control 95/000,358 Patent 6,615,485 B2 42 resilient than the inner Pd layer, where the ‘485 patent discloses the same or similar combination of layers. (See P2, P6, P7.) 12. Claims 8-11 and 42 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Bove and Beaman. Contrary to Appellant’s arguments (see App. Br. 34-35.), replacing Bove’s ceramic substrate structure with Beaman’s compliant substrate structure constitutes a mere substitution of similar parts for their intended purpose. (See IP Req. 38-40; Resp. Br. 27.) Such a compliant structure implicitly signifies a common sense advantage of allowing for expansion, contraction, and mismatch of parts. Also, contrary to Appellant’s other arguments (App. Br. 34), skilled artisans are not automatons, and would have recognized that Beaman’s compliant structure, or Bove’s probe card or substrate, could have been modified readily for any required pitch change or solder connection alterations allegedly required in Bove. Appellant’s argument (id.) that Beaman does not disclose the two conductive layers required in claims 10 and 42 is not persuasive, for reasons addressed supra in the rejections involving Beaman, and Leedy with Beaman. As indicated, the Examiner explains how some embodiments of Beaman’s dual layers satisfy the resiliency requirement, and Appellant fails to demonstrate otherwise under Best or King. (See also RAN 22-23 (discussing Beaman’s dual metal layer interconnection elements as satisfying claims 10 and 11); RAN 45 (discussing Beaman’s dual metal probe embodiments at col. 5, ll. 61-65 as satisfying claim 42).) Appeal 2011-010727 Reexamination Control 95/000,358 Patent 6,615,485 B2 43 13. Remaining Anticipation and Obviousness Rejections It is not necessary to reach the remaining rejections on appeal. (See RAN 3-7 (listing all rejections on appeal).) Cf. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (not reaching obviousness after finding anticipation). DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject appealed claims 1-12, 15, 18-25, 29-38, 41, and 42 is affirmed. Requests for extensions of time in this inter partes reexamination proceeding are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.956. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.79. AFFIRMED ak Ken Burraston/FormFactor Kirton & McConkie P.O. Box 45120 Salt Lake City, UT 84145-0120 Third Party Requester: Richard L. Stroup Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP 901 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001 REVISED EDITION .. lonary Ito.. .. ~. Based onThe' . Random House Dictionary.ofthe' .. English Uinguage THE UNABRmGED EDmON JESS STEIN. EDITORIN CIDEF ejection e·jec·tion (I jek/~an). n. 1. the· act or an iDstance of :;e=~. [~. i~j~~Mn,:f(~~~~~it tiro~~~Jejected. ejec/Uon seat!, an airplane seat that can be ejected with the Itor seat/ • e·Jec·Uve 2. Phonet. (of a . ad with air com Phon.t. an ejecti --e.jec/ tive.ly. adv~ e·Ject of ejecting. 2. Law. a real property may be recovered. ' e·jec· n. 1. a person or thing that ejects. 2. (in a firearm or gun) the mechanism that after firing , tbrows olit the empty cartridge or shell. ' E·ka·te·rin·burg (Russ. e ki/te nen bOl5Rl9l/). n. former name of Sverdlovsk. E·ka·te·rl·no·dar (Russ. e klVte Rlllno dli.nl). n. former name of Krasnodar.. E·ka·te·ri·no·slav (Rusp. e kl!1te aclno sUifl ), n. former name of D1lepropetrovsk. eke' (ek), v.I., eked, ek.ing. 1. Archaic. to increase; en- e out, a. to SU~IY bJi some expedient E\t':t:), t)t ~~lo~r~~~o~ llaca (n.) , OE ~can, var. of iecan (v.t.) < WGme *aukjan; both . to Ieel auka, Goth aukon, L aug~e, Gk auzanein to increase, amplify] eke' (11k), ad.. Archaic. alao. [ME eek, OE ec, eac; c. G auch, lcel, Goth auk] EKG, electrocardiogram. Also, B.X.G. [< G E(lectra)- k(arilio)g(ramme)] . e1 (el),n, See elevated railroad. EJpt:;hUS~~~~b90"J~ (~lt~l';J3).a city iIi and the capital of e~!:e~:~~!r.~dj:...Uj~~~~~~k~ ;J:~I~~~t ~;; ~a nicety of detail; executed with great minuteness. 2. marked by Intricate and often excessive detail; complicated. -V.I. 3. to work out carefully or minutely; develop to perfection. fi; .; :vJ~'ti=iior5iut':,rat:!'a~~ upon): 10 elaoorate upon a theme. of ~labilrllre) worked out. See E-, Oerate.]Y, ado. --e.lab/o·rate·ncs8td;. --e;}ab/ o oral tor.11. painstaking. 2. ornate, intricate. ,:~~~R~~~' ~=~Dae~~~l~hata~l}!rchtcrs ~::B6~;~ ~ characterized bll great, sometimes even excessive, nicety or ~e'f!g~:':. ':fPO~}~ :Th~a~~~'l?~~'::~~;::/c,r ~~::gu:; excessive, otten forced or uninspired, effort: a labor.d ez- planation, style Of writina' That which is STUDIED is ac- ~::~=d:!!t;.caJi:~~ g~~r~!;,,~~ ~o~"u~~f"~~: 3, 5.raflne, improve. -:Ant. 1. simple. ' e·lab-o·ra·Uon ,(i labIa ri!./~n"n), n. 1. the act or an in- stance of 'elabOrating. 2. tIle state of being elaborated; elabOrateness. o;~l~~h~~ that is elaborated. [< L (eJlil op"ten), n. Chem. eleoptene. s (ella gab'a las, IVla-), n. Hellogabalus. (1IlIn"), n. any of several women in Arthurian he daughter of King Pelles and the mother, by f Sir Galahad. El A· (el ill!!! min', -1...), a town on the N coast ~f:v:~:it~~~~gr;f6'c1~C!;.~~9:' ~.::;a'iJ~f.:n:~!t:: EN~~t~f~~';,' G~f~~J~~t~.~~~ !:hJ~~'ll':,~d E·lam·!te (lil'Ja mitt), n. 1. a native or Inhabitant of ancient Elamc 2. a language of nnknown atrinitles, spoken by the Elamit.es as late as the lst century B.C., written c35QO-c2500 B,C. , in a linear SCl'1pt and thereafter in a =~si1~; 1t:~~o~e~fo~rtt:f; language. E·lam·iHc (rlstng the sharks anu ta}'s. -n. 2. an elasInobranch .fish.. [<: NL elasmabranC/l~ii).. Gk metal + branchia (neut. pl.) gills] tIk), adj, '1. capable of retur . g to Its shape. etc.. after beinglitretched, aformed, 2. ,spontaneously expansive, as ases. 3. dating; tolerant: an, elastic ""ce. 4. sprin g back or rebounding: SPrine:Y t. 5. Physics. of, pertalnlng to, or noting a 00 the property of elastiCity. -n. 6. webbing, or mate In the elder form .of a band, made elastic with strips of rubber. 7. something made from this material. as "garter. [< NL elastic(us) expansive <: Gk ,/astlkfJs. = e/asI(Ils) beaten (elas- var. s. of elalln"n to beat, + -Iasptp. suffix) + -ika. clCj -e-las'ti.cal..ly, adt1. " . elas/tiC deformaftion, Physics. the temporary change in leI!gth. volume. Or shape produced in an elastic substance by a stress that Is less than the elastic Ilmit of the substance e-Ias·tlc·Hy (I la stlsll te, !Vla stls/ -), n. 1. the state or quality of being elastic. 2. flexlbllity; resilience. 3, buoy- ancy; ability to resist or overcome depression. 4. Physics. the property of .. substance that enables it to change it. length, volume. direct response to a force and to recover its 0 • n the removal of the force. e·las-U-cize (I . . • to make that can be ~~Fo~i'!tfgn.an elastic causing permanent e·las·t1n (lias/tin), n. Biochern. a; protein constituting the basic. substance of elastic tissue. [ELAST(lC) + -IN21 e·las·to·mer (\ IllsJ't:! mar), n.. Chern. a naturaf or syn_ thetic elastic substance, as rubber or~ neoprene. [ELAST(IC) + -0- + -MER] _·!as·to.mer.le (i lastta mer'lk),adj. e·late (\ Il!t/) , •., e·lat·ed, e.let.ing, adJ. -rI.t. 1. to make to be In high spirits. -adj. 2. lat("') carr! . carry, lift + tid), adj. very happy .1atl'ed-JYt ad,,.~ --e·la ed~nes8, n. tar), n. 1. Bot. an elastic filament servlrig to disperse spores. 2. Zaol. elaterid. 8. Oos. elasticity. [< NL < Gk:driver ela-(e.ofelalln"ntodrive;se."LAlI- TIC) + -t~ n. suffix] e·lat·er·ld (llat/"r id)l n. 1. any beetle of the famlly 'Elateri.~.~'LC?mprlslng tnecllck beetles. -adj. 2. belOnging or pert~ to the famUy Elateridae. e·lat·er·1te (I lat'a nt/ ),. n. an elastic. rubbery, brown.lsh natural asphalt, ' el·a·te·r!·um (eJ/a tart;; am), n. Pharm. a grayish-green . from the iuice of Ecbal/ium elateli""': ber. and used as a cathartic. [<: L < cucumber, neut. Of elat~rja8 purgative = elat8r (see "LATEn) + -ias adj. suffix] E·lath (a 11W), n. a seaport at the N tip of the' GuI! of Aqaba, ill S Israel. 9,700 (est. 1965). Also, Eilat. e·la·tlon (\ 1l!/@i>n), n. a feeling or state of great JOY or l?,ride: exultant gladness: hiIdl spirits. [< ,L e/litilm- (s. of eliitio) , (see ELATE, -ION); r .. ME elaciaun <: AF] e~~~!~~ f~~ ~~notLt r} : mately eqnivalent to e of E1~t'ii I(;,m;:)~e~. [~LI~:ti':)~rl"t:T~ Mediterranean, between and Ital : the scene of Napoleon's first exlle 1814-1 402 (1 sq. mi.' El·be (altha lri central NW from, through E~br::.~t~ :Uto=~ to Wuppertal. El·be Mount, a mountain in central Col.,. rado, in the Sawatch range: second higbest peak of th' Rocky Mountains in the U.S. 14.4ll1' ft. El·ber·ta (el bUr/ta), n. 1. a freestone peach havill! reddish-Yellow skin. 2~. the tree bearing this fruit. El·bl!Jg arly lr e<[."ti:W("i' \n am ~~~w~th~Pfo~~,;::'o"t.. bend. 5. out. b. impoverish": • ru elhowa with, to mingl with. -1I.t. 7. to posh with or , ke (one's way) by BOPOShin! [ME elbowe. 'OE e/(n)boga;. e ELL2.. Bowl) e!:t>:"Jf,~fr..~:? Informal. strenuous physical exertim el·bow·room (ellbl) room/, -rOl5m/ ) , n. ample roOD :El'f.f:i?u~ (,,~f!~si:'°:.e r~~im~aIn In the S Soviet Un!< in E in the 'Caucasus range: the highest peak : Eqrope, 65 ft. Also, Elthruz", El·burz ounttains (el bif6rz/), a mOWltain range N lraiI, along the', S coast of the, Caspian Sea. Highest pe' Mt. Demaveild, 18,606 ft. EI Ca·jon (ell ka Mn/), a City In SW California. 52,2' (1970).' , El Cap·l-tan 81 ;anI), a mounta.in In E Calilarn: in the ountains: precipice that rise' OV Valley. (ell "" to), "city in W california. anc!sco Bay. 25,190 (1970). e (al/we), n. a city in E Spain. 67,088 (1955). d Cam·pe·a·dor esP. el ~ecIl klim/pe 1J. MIa, .red'). See Cid, The., ' uI eld (eld). n. Archaic. 1. age. 2. old age. S. antIQ. ' [ME elde, OE eldo, 'eldo < (e)all! OLD; see WORLD] eld·er1 (el'dar), adj. ' a, campar. Of old with eldest as sUP f ' 1. of greater age; 01der. 2. of blgher rank: senior. 3. ~c pertaining to former times: earlter. -n. 4. a lll't'SOn ,,~ older or higher In rank than oneself. 5. an aged if,erson ec o~~l.::·~u~~~r:t%~ ie dh°e".rt a layman who Ie a ~eroIng_oill. tor in services. [ME: OE .1< Syn. 1. See older. Ii any caprifollacei>us tree or Bhtu haVing Ciusters of white flowers' fruit. [ME elilTe, elrene, ellerne , reservoir dllleorol. a system 01 '~!8:a~[<"'~ilea~ o~Jon on. « L re- ",... + ••car. to cut] ,rvey. a technique 01 t by taking ~ ;s 01 known locatIon. ~ or tissue, esp. bone. itlnt; 011, 1aiIlllnIng = + -iOn- -.ON] -re- i 01 the genus Re.eda, ", 2. a grayish green. e/IIIT. to heal, assuage)] 'j belo~. to the . plants. [<.N L Rese- having a resemblance • IWO persom with re- int 10 thal of Phfdlos • •bUng. ,1. to be Uke or compare. (l\.Qil re- , re- BE- + se1nb/sl' to lis Uke: see SIMI.....,.] .Ing. 1. to send again. show dlsplea.oure or rk. etc.) lrom a sa...., ) (to) be angry < OF L sentire; see BENSE} 'I g:Jinarked by resent- entfful.nes. n. ., feelJng of ~esti'};hi.j~~'!'f.' n. tained from the root of used to alleviate the 'a tranquilizer. « G [, Rauwolfia serpenlina) 1. the act of == 2. the act of exception or quail!!""" U,S. a tract of' publ!c >e. 5. Often.··reser...•. .f accommodations at .. for a ,traveler. 6. the a.ngsment. fME re,.r· :~~d~Tl:rv.iDg. 00 reset great amount, 5. a large or extra. supply or stock: reserve. [< F rlser."lr = reser.(er) (to) RESERVE + -oir -oRy$] re.set (•. rIl set!: n. rIl'set/), •. , ....et••set.tlng. n, -11.!. 1. to set again. --n. 2. the act 01 resetting. 3. that whlch is reset. 4. a device used In resetting an InStrument or control mechanism. -re~8etlter" n. . res ges·tae (rIlz jesfte, ras).I. things done: accom- plishments; deeds. 2. Law. the acts, circumstances, and statements that are incidental to the principal fact of a litigated matter. [< L] .' . Ril! DATA Main entry under title: . The Random Hou~e college dlcti'oriary." Based on the Random House dictionary of the EngliSh language;unabridged ed. Published in 1968 under title: The Rando", Hous~ dictionary of the English language, college ed.' l. English lang~age-Dictionliries, PE1625.R34.1975 42~' 75-4858" ISBN 0-39443.500-1 ISBN 0-394-43690-8 thulIlb-indexed ed. , , aa./O/ur, , Manufactured ill the United States of America