Appeal No. 1998-2515
Application 08/548,938
pads in Oberg located as recited in the claimed invention.
Since the conductive pads of the claimed invention are
not disclosed by Oberg, the claimed location of the aperture
in the dielectric is also not disclosed by Oberg regardless of
whether the examiner’s definition of aperture makes any sense.
Since all the limitations of claims 29, 33, 39 and 43 are not
present within the disclosure of Oberg, the anticipation
rejection of these claims is not sustained.
We now consider the rejection of claims 30-32, 34-38,
40-42 and 44-48 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. This rejection is
based on the examiner’s erroneous finding of anticipation as
discussed above. Therefore, the examiner has also failed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Accordingly, we
also do not sustain the obviousness rejection of these claims.
In summary, we have not sustained any of the
examiner’s prior art rejections based on Oberg. Therefore,
the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 29-48 is
reversed.
REVERSED
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007