Appeal No. 1998-3045
Application 08/612,693
an RF shield attached to the top side, the RF shield covering at least a
portion of the circuit pattern;
a trim pad on the bottom side, electrically connected to the circuit pattern, the
trim pad located directly below the RF shield;
a plurality of surface mount connections on the bottom side, each comprising
a C5 solder bump, at least one of the plurality of surface mount connections electrically
connected to the circuit pattern on the top side; and
at least a portion of the plurality of surface mount connections surrounding
the trim pad.
Opinion
The rejection of claims 1-15 is reversed.
A reversal of the rejection on appeal should not be construed as an affirmative
indication that the appellants’ claims are patentable over prior art. We address only the
positions and rationale as set forth by the examiner and on which the examiner’s rejection
of the claims on appeal is based.
The examiner states: “As admitted by Applicants, the disclosed prior art shows the
claimed structure having all of the features claimed except for the claimed location of the
trim pad.” The so called “disclosed prior art” apparently refers to the appellants’ own
disclosed prior art which is a part of the stated ground of rejection, i.e., page 1, line 10 to
page 2, line 15, and page 3, lines 17-24 and 29-31. We have read the cited portions of
the specification and can find no such admission from the appellants. It is one thing to say
that the appellants have admitted that certain elements were known in the art, which
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007