Appeal No. 1998-3071
Application 08/477,054
Appellants next assert at pages 4-6 of the request that we misapprehended
"whether Sommerfeldt accomplishes their wiring objectives on a single sublayer as
required by Appellants’ claims 1, 15 and 24." Appellants state at the top of page 5 that
"there is no teaching or disclosure in Sommerfeldt that one of the upper or lower planes
may be used to the exclusion of the other." Appellants invite us at the top of page 6 "to
particularly point out where in Sommerfeldt it is stated or disclosed that one of the upper or
lower wiring planes may be used alone to connect wiring cells or route the conductive lines
across the interconnect device."
At the outset, we noted at page 6 of our original opinion that the respective planes
or layers 68 and 70 of representative Figure 8 and their corresponding layers in Figures 2,
3, and 6 may separately comprise an individual or single sublayer to the extent recited at
the end of each independent claim 1, 15 and 24 on appeal. We remain of this view. The
"comprising" nature of each independent claim 1, 15 and 24
on appeal does not exclude the fact that Sommerfeldt may require additional layers
beyond the planes or layers 68 and 70 of representative Figure 8. Sommerfeldt’s Figure 8
layers compare with appellants’ layers in Figure 1 as disclosed. Moreover, Sommerfeldt
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007