Searching \ for '[EE] Overlapping or sharing component pads?' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=overlapping+sharing
Search entire site for: 'Overlapping or sharing component pads?'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[EE] Overlapping or sharing component pads?'
2007\06\08@023633 by Vasile Surducan

face picon face
You're worried for nothing. You may overlapping anything you want as
long the DRC is set for zero isolation between pads sharing the same
route. You gave to the factory the gerbers, they don't care what you
have there as long they don't need to work with (like adding
teardrops, etc).

Vasile

On 6/8/07, PicDude <spam_OUTpicdude2TakeThisOuTspamavn-tech.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2007\06\08@090632 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
Provide the correct bill of materials for a given configuration for a
given build, with component locations and rotation, and they will
assemble it appropriately.

They might care a little bit if the pads are too big or small, as
inappropriately sized pads may lead to poor solder joints, but if you
follow their Design For Manufacturing (DFM) rules then there shouldn't
be an issue.

The RabbitFLEX product
www.rabbitsemiconductor.com/products/RabbitFLEX/largeView.shtml
is very interesting in this respect - if you get a chance to see one
up close, do so.  Each I/O is individually configurable by the end
user during the ordering process, and based on what is chosen
different components are installed in small cells.  A given pad may
accept one end of a resistor in one orientation, a transistor in
another orientation, etc.  I'm sure they've got a patent on some
aspects of this that shows this close up with placement examples, but
I can't find it at the moment.

At any rate, your assembly house should not even blink at it.  Just
make sure your BOM is correct.

-Adam

On 6/8/07, PicDude <.....picdude2KILLspamspam@spam@avn-tech.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2007\06\08@094609 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
The patent application for a the rabbitflex stuff is 20060195804,
filed September 21, 2005, Assignee Digi International Inc.  As an
aside, I doubt the patent covers what you're trying to do.  Just
wanted to give it as an example of other's doing what you're doing,
but on a much larger and more build-to-order way.

I made a PDF out of the patent application so you don't have to wade
through TIFs and other inconvenient web interface issues.
http://ubasics.com/patapp20060195804.pdf

-Adam

On 6/8/07, M. Adam Davis <stienmanspamKILLspamgmail.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2007\06\11@230855 by PicDude

flavicon
face
Am I over-analyzing again? :-)  But this is good to know.  Thanks.



On Friday 08 June 2007 01:36, Vasile Surducan wrote:
> You're worried for nothing. You may overlapping anything you want as
> long the DRC is set for zero isolation between pads sharing the same
> route. You gave to the factory the gerbers, they don't care what you
> have there as long they don't need to work with (like adding
> teardrops, etc).
>
> Vasile
>

2007\06\11@232108 by PicDude

flavicon
face
This is pretty neat, but I'm not clear on if the patent is for the ability to
re-use pads for different components or if it's for their specific
implementation.  If the former, then I have prior art from at least a few
years ago where I did this -- Vref replacing 2 resistors (was a voltage
divider) to feed a PIC's Vref input.  I could select either based on whether
the product required a reference relative to Vdd or absolute (based on the
sensor type).

Cheers,
-Neil.



On Friday 08 June 2007 08:46, M. Adam Davis wrote:
{Quote hidden}

>

2007\06\12@091857 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
I don't think you'll have to worry too much about it.  It seems that
it covers of a reconfigurable circuit on a PCB that doesn't change
when linked to a custom PCB assembly process and ordering process that
does it all automatically and on demand.

But I'm no attorney...

-Adam

On 6/12/07, PicDude <@spam@picdude2KILLspamspamavn-tech.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> >

2007\06\13@091502 by Matt Pobursky

flavicon
face
Is it just me or does anyone else think that being able to patent this
"concept" is ridiculous?

I'm wondering when we'll be seeing some company like Nike patent "Tying
shoelaces with a closed loop control system using visual inspection"?

Geeez... the patent system really needs to get a grip on reality.

Matt Pobursky
Maximum Performance Systems

On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 09:18:55 -0400, M. Adam Davis wrote:
{Quote hidden}

>

2007\06\13@094153 by PicDude

flavicon
face
Not just you.  But we've seen a whole lot of other ridiculous patents,
especially from really big companies, and for things we seem to have been
using for years before the patent.


On Wednesday 13 June 2007 08:14, Matt Pobursky wrote:
> Is it just me or does anyone else think that being able to patent this
> "concept" is ridiculous?
>
> I'm wondering when we'll be seeing some company like Nike patent "Tying
> shoelaces with a closed loop control system using visual inspection"?
>
> Geeez... the patent system really needs to get a grip on reality.
>
> Matt Pobursky
> Maximum Performance Systems

2007\06\13@171021 by wouter van ooijen

face picon face
> Geeez... the patent system really needs to get a grip on reality.

wait, don't tell anyone, I'll patent that! there is certainly no prior
art :)

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu



2007\06\13@174717 by PicDude

flavicon
face
I was also thinking I'd patent "frivolous patents".  Anyone who claims prior
art is confessing to being frivolous :-)



On Wednesday 13 June 2007 16:10, wouter van ooijen wrote:
{Quote hidden}

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2007 , 2008 only
- Today
- New search...