Appeal 2007-2047
Application 10/335,187
Also, Shimoto discloses the formation of conductor patterns on opposite
sides of a printed wiring board (col. 13, ll. 1-4). However, the Examiner has
not presented a detailed analysis of the overall teachings of Carey and the
any other applied references vis-a-vis each of the rejected claims and all of
the required steps thereof together with a consideration of any admissions by
Appellant in rejecting the claims. As another example, we note that the
Examiner has not explained whether the sixth embodiment of Carey teaches
or suggests the use of a solvent as required in the claim 1 core coating with
an A-stage resin step. In this regard, Morita discloses the use of a solvent in
applying a resin composition coating on a substrate (col. 10, ll. 29-33).
However, Morita is not listed among the references applied in the rejection
of claim 1.
In essence, the Examiner simply does not furnish an explicit
explanation referring to the separately applied references by column and line
and drawing figures and elements, showing where in those applied
references subject matter that corresponds to the claimed subject matter
exists. This should have been done on a claim by claim basis at least for the
separately argued claims. Consequently, at this time, it would be premature
for us to resolve all of the patentability issues raised by the references
generally referred to by the Examiner in the Answer.
In light of the foregoing, we remand this application to the Examiner
to resolve the inconsistencies in the references being relied upon in rejecting
some of the appealed claims, as noted above. The Examiner must clarify the
application file record to consistently and unambiguously specify which
references are being applied in the rejection of each of the appealed claims
with regard to any rejections that are maintained in responding to this
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013