Appeal No. 1999-2588
Application No. 08/694,901
not a printed circuit board or layer thereof. With respect to the teachings of Shyu, the
examiner maintains that the circuit board 5 and the dielectric glass 4 would comprise the
multi-layer boards. Again, we disagree with the examiner’s interpretation of Shyu, and we
do not find a multi-layer printed circuit board. Since the examiner has not shown the
claimed invention to be taught by either reference, we will not sustain the rejection of
independent claims 18 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. The same holds true for the claims
that depend from independent claim 18.
35 U.S.C. § 103
With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner merely relies upon
the prior findings of anticipation and finds the specific details of the dependent claims to
be obvious variations of physical characteristics of the structures of Parfitt and Shyu. (See
answer at page 5.) This does not remedy the deficiencies in the structures of Parfitt and
Shyu as noted above nor does it address the motivation to modify the disclosed circuits of
Parfitt and Shyu. Therefore, the examiner has not set forth a case of obviousness.
Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 3, 23, 24, and 27-32 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007