Appeal No. 1997-0439
Application 08/348,414
4, lines 36 to 68), this etching process is chemical and not mechanical or electromechanical as disclosed
by appellants (see specification, page 6). In any event, Hartman’s etching step is performed on the
solder (i.e., electrically conductive material) and not on the substrate as recited in claim 18.
We also find that Hartman’s Figure 3 embodiment, in contrast to the requirement of claim 18,
fails to cleave the substrate through the channel 360 to create the recited corner contact, since as
discussed, supra, Hartman’s Figure 3 embodiment has no right hand end, and therefore there exists no
contact "bridging the first surface and the end surface" as recited in claim 18.
In light of the foregoing, we cannot sustain the rejection of method claims 18 to 21 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 over Hartman.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 8 to 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Hartman is
affirmed.
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 18 to 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Hartman is
reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be
extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007