Appeal No. 96-0541
Application 08/034,845
properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Thus, we will
sustain the
rejection of these claims but we will reverse the rejection of
the remaining claims on appeal for the reasons set forth
infra.
On pages 5-8 of the brief, Appellant argues that the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 5 as being unpatentable in view
of Grier and Holmberg is improper because there is no teaching
or suggestion that "the first furcated row conductor being
driven from one end of said substrate, the other end of said
furcated row conductor being driven from the opposite end of
said substrate" as required by Appellant's claim 5. We note
that Appellant has misquoted claim 5. Claim 5 actually
recites "the first of said furcated row conductors being
driven from one end of said first substrate and the other of
said furcated row conductors being driven from the opposite
end of said first substrate." Emphasis added.
On page 4 of the answer, the Examiner argues that
Holmberg teaches this limitation in Figure 4. Upon a careful
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007