Appeal No. 1997-0439
Application 08/348,414
group consisting of method claims 18 to 20; and a third group consisting of method claim 21. Because4
we find that method claims 18 to 20 and 21 all involve the same basic issue as to patentability, for
purposes of our decision we will discuss claim 8 as being representative of the first group (apparatus
claims 8 to 14) and we will discuss claim 18 as being representative of both the second and third
groups (method claims 18 to 21). See 37 CFR 1.192(c)(7) (1995).
In reaching our conclusion on the issues raised in this appeal, we have carefully considered
appellants’ specification and claims, the Hartman reference, and the respective viewpoints of appellants
and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we are in agreement with the examiner (Answer,
pages 6 to 7) that broadly recited apparatus claims 8 to 14 on appeal would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made in light of the applied reference to
Hartman. We note that apparatus claims 8 to 14 do not require the interconnect substrate be made by
a particular method or in a particular fashion. However, we find ourselves in agreement with appellants
(Brief, pages 6 to 7) that method claims 18 to 21 on appeal are nonobvious since Hartman fails to teach
or suggest the step of cleaving a substrate after filling a channel of the substrate with electrically
conductive material (i.e., solder). For the reasons set forth by the examiner and for those which follow,
we will sustain the decisions of the examiner rejecting claims 8 to 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
We note that although claim 22 was included in this grouping by appellants in their Brief, the rejection as4
to this claim stands objected to by the examiner as being allowable if re writen in independent form including all of
the limiations of the base claim 21,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007