Appeal No. 1998-1408 Page 14
Application No. 08/569,529
flat, parallel, spaced apart copper strip conductors 22 on a
suitable flexible dielectric substrate ... to provide a coil
blank or workpiece 26 with exposed conductors.” Col. 2,
ll. 66-68.
In view of this admission and disclosure, we are
persuaded that the teachings of Sato, Layton, and Dirks in
combination with the prior art as a whole would have suggested
the claimed limitations of “a flexible dielectric sheet and
elongated conductors printed on said sheet ....”
Third, the appellants argue, “claim 1 recites that the
conductors are surface bonded to respective conductors of the
printed circuit board. Sato does not disclose such surface
bonding. Rather, the leads/wires 4 of Sato are inserted into
throughholes 5.” (Appeal Br. at 4.) They add, “because the
flex circuit of Layton et al. is closed on itself, there is no
surface bonding of the flex circuit coil portion to a printed
circuit board ....” (Id.) The examiner replies, “the
conductors 4 of Saito [sic] are considered surface mounted
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007