Appeal No. 1998-3045
Application 08/612,693
on the periphery of the carrier as insurance against defective or mistakenly removed
resistors (Abstract). According to Neumann, having terminating resistors directly on circuit
boards is wasteful of circuit board space (Background of the Invention). If the examiner
considers entire terminating resistors on chip carriers as trim pads, no explanation has
been given to justify such an interpretation. The appellants’ specification appears to
regard a “trim pad” as an element apart from the circuit pattern on the substrate (spec. at
2, lines 25-29). Moreover, Neumann’s resistors are not on the bottom side of a substrate
where C5 solder bumps are located and on the top side of which exists a circuit pattern as
the appellants have claimed. Tanaka’s invention is directed to a circuit board
including disk-shaped resistors on one surface thereof. Tanaka does state that the
resistors can be arranged at arbitrary positions on the board (column 1, lines 20-23), but if
read in context the language indicates that the arbitrary positions are all located on the
same side of the board. Note that in column 1, lines 8-11, Tanaka states: “In conventional
circuit boards, resistors are formed on an upper surface of the board by . . . .” (Emphasis
added). In column 1, lines 17-19, where problems with the prior art is described, Tanaka
states: “a resistor cannot be formed at an arbitrary position on the surface of the board”
(Emphasis added). Furthermore, as is the case with Neumann, the examiner has offered
no explanation for apparently regarding resistors which are a part of the circuit pattern as a
“trim pad” in the context of the appellants’ claimed invention.
For the foregoing reasons, the examiner has failed to establish a sufficient factual
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007