Ex Parte LI et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 7, 2017

13470432 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 7, 2017)

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.
13/470,432 05/14/2012 Ning LI JSP-4593-399 5856
23117 7590 04/11/2017
NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
EXAMINER
LAFLAME JR, MICHAEL A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/11/2017 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):
PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com
pair_nixon @ firsttofile. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NING LI and QIN PING ZHAO
Appeal 2015-007178
Application 13/470,432
Technology Center 3700
Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, THOMAS F. SMEGAL, and
ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges.
JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Ning Li and Qin Ping Zhao (“Appellants”) seek review under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s decision, as set forth in the Final
Office Action dated July 7, 2014 (“Final Act.”), and as further explained in
the Advisory Action dated November 21, 2014 (“Adv. Act.”), rejecting
claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 11, and 12.1 Claims 2-4, 6, 9, 10, and 14 are canceled and
claims 13 and 15—17 are withdrawn. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify SAE MAGNETICS (H.K.) LTD. as the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2015-007178
Application 13/470,432
BACKGROUND
The disclosed subject matter “relates to a soldering device and a
soldering method and, more particularly, to an apparatus and a method for
forming electrical solder connections in a disk drive unit.” Spec. 1.
Claims 1 and 11 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below, with
emphasis added:
1. An apparatus for forming electrical solder
connections in a disk drive unit, comprising:
a nozzle device for carrying out soldering on
two pre-welding surfaces, the nozzle device
comprising a nozzle and a holder for holding the
nozzle, and the nozzle and the holder being two
separate structures removably connected to one
another by a fixture; the nozzle having a main
passage and a solder ball outlet, and the holder
having a guiding passage communicated with the
main passage and a common passage, and the
common passage, guiding passage and main
passage being coaxial;
a solder ball feeding device for transferring a
single solder ball to the nozzle device;
a gas pump device for supplying pressurized
gases to the nozzle device;
a laser device for emitting laser beams to the
solder ball, thereby melting and reflowing the solder
ball; and
a control device comprising at least one
sensor for at least detecting status of the solder ball
or pressure in the nozzle device or distance between
the nozzle device and the pre-welding surfaces, and
a control unit connected with the at least one sensor,
the control device further comprising a second
sensor connected with the guiding passage and
being configured to detect whether the pressure in
2
Appeal 2015-007178
Application 13/470,432
the guiding passage achieves a predetermined
value,
wherein the common passage is provided for
connecting the nozzle device with the solder ball
feeding device, the gas pump device and the laser
device respectively, the common passage has a
rectangular cross section, which has a first diameter
larger than the diameter of the solder ball, and the
guiding passage has a tapered cross section which
has a maximum diameter and a minimum diameter,
and the minimum diameter is larger than the first
diameter.
REJECTION
Claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 11, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Matsumoto (US 2010/0089981 Al, published Apr. 15,
2010), Wagoh (US 7,591,406 B2, issued Sept. 22, 2009), and Reiber (US
2007/0131661 Al, published June 14, 2007).2
2 The Examiner confirms that this is the rejection pending. See Ans. 3
(§ 2(a)) (responding to Appeal Br. 8 (third paragraph)). In the Final Office
Action, the Examiner rejected (1) claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 11, and 12 as
unpatentable over Matsumoto and Wagoh and (2) claim 6 (now canceled) as
unpatentable over Matsumoto, Wagoh, and Reiber. See Final Act. 2—11. In
an Amendment after Final filed November 6, 2014, Appellants incorporated
certain limitations from claim 6 into independent claims 1 and 11, and
canceled claim 6. See Appeal Br. 8.
3
Appeal 2015-007178
Application 13/470,432
DISCUSSION
Both independent claims 1 and 11 recite, among other limitations, “a
control device . . . further comprising a second sensor connected with the
guiding passage and being configured to detect whether the pressure in the
guiding passage achieves a predetermined value.” Claims App. 2, 4.3
In the Final Office Action, the Examiner relied on Reiber 135. See
Final Act. 10—11.4
Appellants correctly argue that Reiber “fails to teach or suggest” the
limitations at issue because, “[although Reiber mentions a pressure sensor,
it is silent on a sen[s]or being connected with the guiding passage and being
configured to detect whether the pressure in the guiding passage achieves a
predetermined value.” Appeal Br. 14. Appellants contend that, “[ijnstead,
the pressure sen[s]or is used with respect to coining and in marked contrast
aids in determining whether a solder ball has been sufficiently coined — as
may be observed from various readings generated by the sensor and as may
be observable at a computing device coupled to the system.” Id.
The Examiner responds that “Reiber discusses a pressure sensor at
[0035]” and that “[although Reiber does not show the pressure sensor in the
figures, Reiber discusses the pressure sensor’s use with determining whether
a solder ball has coined [0035].” Ans. 6. The Examiner, seemingly
3 We refer to the Claims Appendix filed with the Response to Notice
of Non-Compliant Appeal Brief dated April 23, 2015. Also, we will refer to
this limitation as the “limitations at issue.”
4 The limitations at issue are revised versions of language previously
recited in dependent claim 6 (now canceled). Compare Claims App. 2, 4,
with Amendments to the Claims filed Sept. 4, 2013. As the original findings
regarding the limitations at issue, we refer to the findings addressing the
relevant language in now-canceled claim 6.
4
Appeal 2015-007178
Application 13/470,432
acknowledging the absence of any disclosure in Reiber concerning the
location and function of the pressure sensor in paragraph 35, also states: “It
is respectfully argued that a person of ordinary skill in the art would measure
the pressure in the guiding tube to be sure that the size of a solder ball is not
a desired size either too large or too small (a predetermined size).” Id.
The Examiner has not adequately explained (and it is unclear from our
review of Reiber) how the relied-upon disclosures teach or suggest all
aspects of the limitations at issue. For example, the Examiner has not
established, with sufficient technical reasoning or evidence, the proffered
relationship between the size of a solder ball and the pressure in a guiding
tube. See Ans. 6. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of independent
claims 1 and 11, and also do not sustain the rejection of claims 5, 7, 8, and
12 (which depend from claim 1).
DECISION
We REVERSE the decision to reject claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 11, and 12.
REVERSED
5