Appeal No. 1999-2574
Application No. 08/728,878
form part of the buses, or layers, 82, 84, 86. That is, as
the examiner explains it, at page 5 of the answer, referring
to Attachment A to the answer,
As clearly indicated by the line segment I,
the left-most conductor (50R) runs underneath
of strip (82). The lack of such a line at
the junction of the other two conductors
(50R) with strip (82) in figure 10, shows
that these other two conductors are in one
piece with the strip (82) (the dashed line at
these two junctions illustrates a coextensive
conductor on a lower level). Therefore, the
width of the metallic strip (82)fluctuates
stepwise, is nonuniform, but is in no way
monotonically increasing or decreasing.
We understand how the examiner arrived at this conclusion
but, in our view, the examiner has reached this conclusion
through obvious misrepresentations by the drawings rather than
by any disclosure of the instant specification. Clearly,
there should have been a line, similar to the one represented
by “I” in the examiner’s Attachment A, across each of the
strips 50R at the vias 60 in order to show that the strips 50R
are underneath layer 82. This appears to be an error in the
drawing itself, rather than an attempt to show the layer 82 as
having elongated fingers at the two middle portions where it
intersects with the middle strips 50R. It is suggested that
the drawings be corrected to show what is described in the
5–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007