Appeal No. 96-0541
Application 08/034,845
review, we find that Holmberg teaches in Figure 4 the first of
said furcated row conductors, elements 90 and 94, being driven
from one end of said first substrate via pad 92 and the other
of said furcated row conductors, the two horizonal conductors
electrically connected to pad 102 being driven from the
opposite end of said first substrate via pad 102 as recited in
Appellants’ claim 5.
We find that the Examiner properly found that Holmberg
suggested the desirability modifying the first and second
frucated row conductors of Grier to be driven from opposite
panel ends as taught by Holmberg. In column 5, lines 65-67,
Holmberg teaches that driving the row conductors at opposite
sides provides additional connecting space for the pads. In
view of this teaching, we find that Holmberg suggests to those
skilled in the art to modify Grier in order to provide
additional connecting space. Therefore, we will sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Grier and Holmberg.
Claims 7 through 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007