Appeal 2006-1662
Application 10/453,119
deficiency, the Examiner found that Farnsworth teaches “notches 18 formed
on the substrate 10 facilitate . . . alignment of the bond pads 14 with their
corresponding conductive elements 35 of mating connector 30” (Answer 6).
Based on Farnsworth’s disclosure, the Examiner concluded that it would
have been obvious at the time the invention was made to “modify Hanato [ ]
by constructing the plate 5 [i.e., reinforcement plate] as taught by
Farnsworth [ ] in order to facilitate alignment [of] the connections between
two connectors” (Answer 6).
Appellant argues that neither Hanato nor Farnsworth discloses a
fragile substrate bonded to a reinforcement plate (Br. 15). Appellant
reiterates his argument that Hanato does not disclose that reinforcement
plate 4 (i.e., fragile substrate) is fragile or that metal plate 5 (i.e.,
reinforcement plate) is “substantial enough to provide any sort of additional
reinforcement for the ‘reinforcement plate 4’ [i.e., fragile substrate]”
(Br. 15).
The Examiner responds that Farnsworth is not cited for teaching
bonding a fragile substrate to a reinforcement plate (Answer 11). Rather,
Farnsworth is cited for his teaching of using notches for connector alignment
(Answer 11).
We agree with the Examiner’s ultimate conclusion that Appellant’s
claim 2 is unpatentable over Hanato in view Farnsworth.
Contrary to Appellant’s argument above, Hanato discloses the same
structure recited in Appellant’s claim 1.2 Hanato does not disclose using
notches. However, Farnsworth discloses using “notches” to facilitate
2 See our discussion of the § 102(b) rejection over Hanato earlier in this
decision.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007