Appeal No. 1997-0439
Application 08/348,414
unpatentable over Hartman. For the reasons generally set forth by appellants and for those which
follow, we will reverse the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 18 to 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Rejection of Claims 8 to 14 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
We agree with appellants (Brief, pages 5 to 6) that Hartman’s Figure 3 embodiment does not
disclose an end surface which has been formed by cutting through channel 360 and indents 301/302.
Appellants are correct that Hartman’s Figure 3 is a cross-sectional view and that therefore the substrate
300 in Figure 3 has no right hand end. Accordingly, we must agree that Hartman’s embodiment of
Figure 3 fails to meet the specific limitation of representative claim 8 of a substrate which is cut through
a first surface and a channel. However, we note that in the responsive arguments section of the Answer
(Answer, pages 6 to 7) the examiner has relied upon Figures 1 and 2 of Hartman, which disclose a
different embodiment than Figure 3 of Hartman.
We find ourselves in agreement with the examiner (Answer, pages 6 to 7) that Hartman’s
embodiment of Figures 1 and 2 would have taught or suggested the features of an interconnect
substrate recited in apparatus claims 8 to 14 on appeal, especially to the extent claimed. We note that
representative claim 8 merely calls for "the substrate being cut" through a first surface and a channel in
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007