Appeal No. 96-3357
Application 08/292,491
At the outset, we note the fundamental difference between
the applied prior art and the invention as interpreted to be
claimed. The invention requires the capability of receiving
an electrical package device surface mounted on a mounting
area on a first layer of a multilayer circuit board. This is
clear from Appellant’s statements in the specification and
brief. Thus, for example, Appellant states that “The mounting
layer has a pad configured for the semiconductor device on a
first side and a heat sink area for the heat sink on a second
side.” [Specification, page 3, lines 20 to 23]. On page 5 of
specification, Appellant says that “... circuit board 10
includes a surface mount electrical device 28 mounted on
contact area 22 of board 10 within recess 27.” [Lines 15 to
17]. Again, Appellant clarifies the invention by stating that
“More particularly, Appellant provided a multilayer circuit
board having a surface mount pad located in a cavity in the
multilayer circuit board.” [Brief, page 13]. The applied
prior art does not deal with surface mounting. Nevertheless,
we analyze below the rejection of claims 1 through 5 and 23 as
presented by the Examiner.
We have considered the rejections presented by the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007