Appeal No. 2001-1019
Application No. 08/928,826
we agree with appellants that the method steps with the associated states of the
corresponding structure before and after mounting is changed which would be
programming or configuring of the circuit after the mounting of the integrated circuit, to
provide a modifiable interconnect pattern.
From our review of the examiner’s answer, the examiner does not appear to
appreciate that the claim is directed to a process of manufacturing rather than an article
of manufacture. The examiner maintains that the end resulting structure is taught and
fairly suggested by the combination of prior art teachings, and we tend to agree with the
examiner. But the claim is directed to a process of manufacturing rather than an article
of manufacture which the examiner has not addressed or explicitly pointed out where or
how the prior art teaches the claimed mounting and then connecting the conductors
and fingers to the vias as recited in independent claim 14.
Therefore, the examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness
of the claimed invention, and we cannot sustain the rejection of independent claim 14
and its dependent claims 15-19.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007