Appeal No. 1999-0529
Application 08/588,800
According to appellants, these claims stand or fall together
as a single group [brief, page 7]. We note that claim 7
depends from claim 6 which is not subject to this rejection.
Therefore, claim 7 will stand or fall with claim 6 which will
be considered below. We will consider independent claim 24 as
the representative claim for the other claims of this group.
The examiner indicates how he perceives the invention
of claim 24 to be fully met by the disclosure of Martin
[answer, pages 3-4]. Appellants argue that elements 120a of
Martin are not spacer members in a dielectric sheet defined by
through-holes in that dielectric sheet as recited in claim 24.
Appellants also argue that elements 110c and 110d are also not
spacer members, but are only channel sidewalls formed by
bonding long, narrow glass fibers 106 to the surface of the
substrate [brief, pages 7-8]. The examiner’s response appears
to be that members 110c of Martin’s Figure 4B are spacer
members defined by through holes or elongated channels in the
same manner as appellants’ spacer members shown in Figure 3 of
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007