Appeal No. 97-2488
Application 08/163,202
It is clear to this panel of the board that the
presence of the noted indefinite language obfuscates the metes
and bounds of the claimed method which appellants regard as their
invention. As a concluding point, we note that the examiner6
indicates that the presence of indefiniteness in the claims,
i.e., the inability to ascertain the metes and bounds of the
claimed subject matter, is the reason why prior art has not been
applied thereto (answer, page 5).
In summary, this panel of the board has affirmed the
rejection of claims 22 and 37 through 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in con-
nection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
6In the amended appeal brief (page 7), it is set forth that
the invention lies “in the details of the process i.e. that the
coating is patterned so as to produce solder bridges that extend
from the lands into the apertures.”
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007