Appeal 2007-2460
Application 10/709,179
For the first ground of rejection contested by appellant in this
appeal, claims 15-16, 18 may be treated as one group, and
independent claim 15 may be taken as the representative for the
issue on appeal. For the second ground of rejection contested
by appellant in this appeal, claims 15, 17 & 19 may be treated
as one group to stand or fall together, and independent claim 15
may be taken as the representative for the issue on appeal. For
the third ground of rejection contested by appellant in this
appeal, claims 15 and 20, and claim 15 may be taken as the
representative for issue on appeal.
(Appeal Br. at 4).
17) ASE’s Reply Brief makes the following statement:
However, to one of ordinary skills in the art, since the pattern
14 and bumps 19 are not even physically connected, the pattern
14 would not be considered bump pads but merely one of the
interconnect types.
(Reply Br. at 8).
18) Both ASE’s Appeal Brief and Reply Brief state that no evidence was
submitted for review on appeal. (Appeal Br. at 12 and Reply Br. at 15).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
During prosecution of a patent application, claims are given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. In re
Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969)
(unpatented claims given broadest reasonable construction consistent with
specification).
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013