Ex Parte Liu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 30, 2017

14583357 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 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.
14/583,357 12/26/2014 Kuang Liu 884.S11US1 7594
45457 7590 11/01/2017
SPITWFflMAN T T TNDRF.RO Rr WOFNNNFR/Tntel
EXAMINER
P.O. Box 2938 GUSHI, ROSS N
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2833
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/01/2017 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):
uspto@slwip.com
SLW @blackhillsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KUANG LIU, GREGORIO MURTAGIAN,
DAVID J. LLAPITAN, JEFFORY L. SMALLEY, GAURAV CHAWLA,
JOSHUA D. HEPPNER, VIJAYKUMAR KRITHIVASAN, and
JONATHAN W. THIBADO1
Appeal 2017-001775
Application 14/583,357
Technology Center 2800
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4—11, and 14—20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6.
We AFFIRM.
Appellants claim a socket comprising a housing 11, first and second
pin receiving fields 12, 13 having first and second pluralities of electrical
contacts, and an actuation mechanism 14 to engage the first and second
1 Intel Corporation is identified as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-001775
Application 14/583,357
pluralities of electrical contacts with first and second sets of pins 22, 24 on
first and second electronic packages 21, 23, wherein the actuation
mechanism is between the first and second pin receiving fields (independent
claim 1, Figs. 1, 9) as well as a corresponding method that comprises
operating an actuating mechanism position between first and second pin grid
arrays/receiving fields (independent claim 14). Appellants also claim an
electronic assembly comprising pin receiving fields 12, 13 and electronic
packages 21,23 of the type previously described in combination with a
socket load frame 32, wherein at least one of the electronic packages extends
over the socket load frame (independent claim 7, Figs. 1,9, 10) as well as a
corresponding method (remaining independent claim 19).
A copy of representative claims 1, 7, and 14 taken from the Claims
Appendix of the Appeal Brief, appears below.
1. A socket comprising:
a housing;
a first receiving pin field formed as part of the housing,
the first pin receiving field including a first plurality of
electrical contacts;
a second receiving pin field formed as part of the
housing, the second pin field including a second plurality of
electrical contacts; and
an actuation mechanism that is configured to engage the
first plurality of electrical contacts with a first set of pins on a
first electronic package and the second plurality of electrical
contacts with a second set of pins on a second electronic
package, and wherein the actuation mechanism is between the
first pin receiving field and the second pin receiving field.
7. An electronic assembly comprising:
a socket that includes a housing with a first receiving pin
field and a second receiving pin field, the first pin receiving
2
Appeal 2017-001775
Application 14/583,357
field including a first plurality electrical contacts and the second
pin field including a second plurality electrical contacts;
a first electronic package that includes a first pin grid
array;
a second electronic package that includes a second pin
grid array;
an actuation mechanism that engages the first plurality
electrical contacts with the first pin grid array and the second
plurality electrical contacts with the second pin grid array;
a substrate, wherein the housing is mounted to a
substrate; and
a socket load frame mounted to the substrate, the socket
load frame surrounding the housing, wherein at least one of the
first electronic package and the second electronic package
extends over the socket load frame.
14. A method comprising:
inserting a first pin grid array of a first electronic package
into a first pin receiving field formed in a housing;
inserting a second pin grid array of a second electronic
package into a second pin receiving field formed in the
housing; and
operating an actuating mechanism that is positioned
between the first pin grid array and the second pin grid array to
simultaneously engage the first pin grid array with a first
plurality of contacts in the first pin receiving field and the
second pin grid array with a second plurality of contacts in the
second pin receiving field.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner rejects the following claims
as unpatentable:
claims 1, 4—6, 14, 15, and 18 over Sagano (US 6,602,084 B2, issued
Aug. 5, 2003);
3
Appeal 2017-001775
Application 14/583,357
claims 7—11, 16, 17, 19, and 20 over Sagano in view of Malone (US
2005/0239314 Al, published Oct. 27, 2005);
claim 2 over Sagano in view of Sun (US 2005/0042909 Al, published
Feb. 24, 2005); and
claims 14, 15, and 18 over Li (US 6,406,317 Bl, issued June 18,
2002) in view of Sagano.
Appellants present arguments specifically directed to the independent
claims only (see App. Br. 9-15). Therefore, the dependent claims under
rejection will stand or fall with their parent independent claims.
We will sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejections for the reasons
expressed in the Final Office Action, the Answer, and below.
The Rejection of Independent Claims 1 and 14 based on Sagano
The Examiner finds that Sagano discloses a socket having first and
second pin receiving fields with an actuation mechanism 16 on a side of
these fields but concludes that it would have been obvious to locate the
actuation mechanism between the first and second pin receiving fields as
claimed in order to increase the distance between the fields, thereby
allowing for accommodation of larger chip packages (Final Action 2—3).
Appellants argue that they “fail[] to see how the opening 20 of Sagano
and the corresponding items that relate to reference numerals 21-23 of
Sagano would be modified if the actuator mechanism of Sagano were
somehow to be incorporated into the middle of the Sagano socket assembly”
(App. Br. 10).
Appellants’ argument is unpersuasive for the reasons given by the
Examiner detailing the specific structural modifications (e.g., moving shafts
4
Appeal 2017-001775
Application 14/583,357
27 and 28) that would accomplish the proposed relocation of Sagano’s
actuation mechanism (Ans. 2).
In reply, Appellants contend that the Examiner’s proposal “would
render the resulting device unusable as the shafts 27 and 28 would therefore
cover one of the respective socket bodies” (Reply Br. 2). This contention
lacks persuasive merit because it fails to presume skill in the art. See KSR
Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (“A person of ordinary
skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not and automaton.”); In re
Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“This argument presumes
stupidity rather than skill.”). We also are unconvinced by Appellants’
statement that the proposed relocation “would render the system unable to
simultaneously move each socket body 12” (Reply Br. 2) because Sagano’s
actuation mechanism moves slide blocks 13, not socket bodies 12. Finally,
Appellants’ remark that “there is no readily apparent way to move the base
11” (id.) is unpersuasive because the Examiner does not propose moving
base 11 but rather proposes locating between the pin fields “[t]he portion of
the base 11 supporting the lever support shaft 27” (Ans. 2).
Moreover, we discern merit in the Examiner’s determination that the
proposed relocation of Sagano’s actuation mechanism would have been
within the ordinary level of skill in this art as evinced by, not only Sagano
but also, Appellants’ Specification which discloses broadly without
structural details that the actuation mechanism is positioned between the pin
receiving fields or alternatively in other locations relative to the fields (Ans.
3 (citing, e.g., Spec. 124)).
The Reply Brief “traverses” the Examiner’s determination (Reply Br.
3 4) but does not explain with any reasonable specificity why an artisan
5
Appeal 2017-001775
Application 14/583,357
would possess the skill to relocate Appellants’ actuation mechanism but not
Sagano’s.
Appellants further argue that an artisan would not have relocated the
actuation mechanism of Sagano as proposed because such a modification
would have made Sagano’s socket assembly undesirably larger (App. Br.
11-12).
This argument is not convincing. Appellants provide no evidence that
Sagano’s modified socket assembly would be larger or that a larger
assembly would be undesirable. Moreover, an artisan would have relocated
Sagano’s actuation mechanism in order to achieve the advantages detailed
by the Examiner (Final Action 3; Ans. 4).
For these reasons, Appellants do not reveal reversible error in the
Examiner’s § 103 rejection based on Sagano.
The Rejection of Independent Claims 7 and 19 based on Sagano and
Malone
The Examiner finds that Sagano discloses an electronic assembly
having a socket load frame 11 as claimed, but does not disclose the claim
feature wherein an electronic package extends over the socket load frame
(Final Action 4). Concerning this deficiency, the Examiner finds that
Malone discloses an electronic component or package 20 extending well
beyond the underlying socket 14 {id. at 4—5) and concludes that it would
have been obvious to use the package configuration taught by Malone in
Sagano’s assembly whereby a portion of the package would extend beyond
the assembly perimeter and thus over the socket load frame {id. at 5).
Appellants contend that the Examiner’s proposed combination is not
possible “because Sagano specifically teaches incorporating electronic
6
Appeal 2017-001775
Application 14/583,357
packages under guide sections 34 (see FIGS. 1-2 and 4-7 of Sagano)” (App.
Br. 12; see also Reply Br. 5).
This contention is not persuasive because Appellants fail to identify
any teaching in Sagano that the electronic packages are incorporated “under”
guide sections 34. Furthermore, these guide sections would not have
interfered with the proposed combination of Sagano and Malone for the
reasons given by the Examiner (Ans. 5).
Appellants also contest the rejection by arguing that “there is no
description in . . . Sagano . . . related to a socket load frame” (App. Br. 13).
According to Appellants, “the socket base 11 in Sagano is not a socket load
frame as recited in the claims” (Reply Br. 7).
This unembellished argument is not convincing because Appellants
fail to explain why or how their claimed “socket load frame” distinguishes
from Sagano’s “frame shaped socket base 11” (Sagano, col. 4,1. 42). On the
other hand, a comparison of the socket load frame 32 shown in Appellants’
Figure 10 with the frame shaped socket base 11 shown in Sagano’s Figures
4—6 reveals that each includes an upstanding frame or wall surrounding a
socket housing.
Under these circumstances, Appellants also fail to show reversible
error in the § 103 rejection based on Sagano and Malone.
The Rejection of Independent Claim 14 based on Li and Sagano
The Examiner finds that Li discloses an actuating mechanism
positioned between first and second pin receiving fields as claimed (Final
Action 8—9) but does not disclose the claim feature involving first and
second packages (id. at 9). The Examiner finds that this claim feature is
disclosed by Sagano and concludes that it would have been obvious “to use
7
Appeal 2017-001775
Application 14/583,357
the Li device with first and second packages, each having a pin grid array, as
taught in Sagano, on the first and second pin receiving fields [of Li]” (id.).
As correctly indicated by the Examiner (Ans. 6), Appellants’ remarks
concerning Li and Sagano (App. Br. 14) do not show this rejection to be
erroneous because they are not reasonably germane to the proposed
combination of these references.
Conclusion
For the reasons given above and by the Examiner, we sustain each of
the § 103 rejections of the appealed claims.
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4—11, and 14—20 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
8