Appeal No. 1998-0512
Application No. 08/477,238
could be modified to meet the claimed invention. Merely that
the prior art can be modified in the manner suggested by the
examiner does not make the modification obvious unless the
prior art suggested the desirability of the modification. In
re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-4 (Fed.
Cir. 1992). Thus, the examiner has failed to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness. Accordingly, we must reverse
the rejection of claim 11 and its dependents, claims 12
through 14.
The remaining independent claims, 15, 17, and 22, recite
that the first and third and the second and fourth conductive
paths are capacitively or reactively coupled "through" a
dielectric substrate. The examiner states (Answer, page 7)
that "[t]he phrase through the board does not require
couplings from one side of the board to the other side of the
board." We disagree. The word "through" conventionally means
from one side or surface to the other. Further, claims are to
be interpreted in light of the specification, and "through the
board" is clearly shown in the figures and disclosed in the
accompanying specification as meaning from one side or surface
to the other. Additionally, as explained supra, we find no
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007