Appeal No. 97-2488
Application 08/163,202
Having read the underlying specification of appellants’
application, and reviewed independent claims 22 and 42 in light
thereof, we fully appreciate the difficulty encountered by the
examiner in seeking an understanding of the content of the claims
as drafted.
The examiner has faulted the claims in the rejection as
being vague, indefinite, and awkwardly and/or confusingly worded.
We find that the organization of the content of each of process
claims 22 and 42 is awkward, rendering the readability thereof
quite difficult. This problem is exacerbated by the circum-
stance that the underlying specification is not structured to
include a specific portion thereof devoted to the disclosure of
the processes now claimed, upon which the claims at issue can be
read in light thereof.5
5We note that the process for manufacturing an electrical
interconnect structure of claim 22 includes the recitation of
providing windows “for mass soldering of the leads to the lands”
(at line 26), an apparent non-limiting intended use, whereas in
claim 42, the process for manufacturing an electrical assembly
not only includes the step of providing windows “for soldering
the leads to the lands” (lines 27 and 28) but also expressly
includes as a limitation thereof the step of “soldering” the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007