Appeal No. 97-2488 Application 08/163,202 Having read the underlying specification of appellants’ application, and reviewed independent claims 22 and 42 in light thereof, we fully appreciate the difficulty encountered by the examiner in seeking an understanding of the content of the claims as drafted. The examiner has faulted the claims in the rejection as being vague, indefinite, and awkwardly and/or confusingly worded. We find that the organization of the content of each of process claims 22 and 42 is awkward, rendering the readability thereof quite difficult. This problem is exacerbated by the circum- stance that the underlying specification is not structured to include a specific portion thereof devoted to the disclosure of the processes now claimed, upon which the claims at issue can be read in light thereof.5 5We note that the process for manufacturing an electrical interconnect structure of claim 22 includes the recitation of providing windows “for mass soldering of the leads to the lands” (at line 26), an apparent non-limiting intended use, whereas in claim 42, the process for manufacturing an electrical assembly not only includes the step of providing windows “for soldering the leads to the lands” (lines 27 and 28) but also expressly includes as a limitation thereof the step of “soldering” the 6Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007