Appeal No. 2006-1449
Application No. 10/404,266
reasonably constitute "pads" given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term
and the commensurate electrical connection and mounting function that the traces 46
provide in Burns.
Furthermore, we disagree with appellants that the etched traces in Burns are cut
into the PCB. We note that Burns expressly teaches that connective elements 44 and
46 may (1) rest on surfaces 45 or 47, or (2) be embedded into those surfaces [Burns,
col. 3, line 66 - col. 4, line 1; emphasis added]. That is, embedding the traces in the
PCB's surfaces is an alternative to resting the traces on the surfaces. Furthermore, in
general, an etched conductive trace does not have to be cut into a PCB as appellants
allege. Rather, only the trace's conductive layer -- not the underlying substrate -- need
be etched to produce an etched trace. Etching only the conductive layer would, among
other things, facilitate forming the layer in a desired geometric pattern (e.g., serpentine,
linear, etc.) on the substrate.1
Appellants' argument that merely because Burns' etched trace rests on the
PCB's surface does not mean that the trace is raised is unpersuasive. Notwithstanding
the ostensibly opposite meanings of "resting" and "raised" as argued by appellants, the
traces in Burns nevertheless are displaced away from the lower surface of the PCB as
the examiner indicates. In our view, the examiner's interpretation of "raised" as
including such displacement is reasonable given the term's broadest reasonable
interpretation.
1
1See, e.g., U.S. Pat. 6,020,574, col. 2, lines 49-68 and Fig. 5 (disclosing a serpentine etched trace 40).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007