Appeal No. 95-4028
Application 08/097,904
the claims are indefinite because "the testing wires could not be
tested if they were insulated" (Answer, page 5).
With respect to claim 1, appellant argues (Brief, pages 5
and 6) that:
There is no limitation in claim 1 as to when the
testing takes place nor as to when the insulating means
covers and electrically insulates the second ends of
the testing wire conductors. Moreover, there is no
requirement in claim 1 that the testing wire conductors
be exposed generally in the completed IC card. Rather,
claim 1 only requires that the testing wire conductors
be exposed at the second surface of the circuit board.
As plainly apparent from the embodiment of the
invention shown in Figure 3, even when the insulating
means, the sheet 17 in Figure 3, is in place, the
testing wire conductors are still exposed at the second
surface of the circuit board. Thus, no inconsistency
can be found in the language of independent claim 1.
Appellant additionally argues (Reply Brief, pages 3 and 4)
that:
It matters not whether insulating means or any other
object is present and covers the second surface of the
circuit board or the second ends of the testing wire
conductors because, in any event, those second ends of
the testing wire conductors are still present, i.e.,
exposed at, the second surface of the circuit board.
With respect to claim 14, appellant argues (Reply Brief, page 4)
that:
The Examiner's arguments make it appear that claim
14 also includes the "for testing" language of claim 1.
It does not. All that claim 14 requires is that each
testing wire conductor be exposed at an end of a resin
package, just as they are shown in Figures 9 and 11 of
the application. Testing using those conductors and
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007