Appeal No. 2000-0424
Application 08/760,510
OPINION
Grouping of claims
The Examiner's conclusion that claims 4 and 8 stand or
fall together (EA2) is erroneous. Appellant's statement that
"[w]ith respect to the first (and only) issue on appeal,
claims 4 and 8 are considered as a single group" (Br7), is a
little confusing because we normally consider a group to be a
group of claims that stand or fall together. Nevertheless,
Appellant states that claims 4 and 8 do not stand or fall
together (Br7) and provides arguments for their separate
patentability in the argument section. Accordingly, claims 4
and 8 are addressed separately.
Claim interpretation
Claims 4 and 8 are interpreted to be product-by-process
claims because they contain at least one process step, the
step of forming a hole to sever the lead between BTHs or
conductors. The Examiner previously rejected claims 4 and 8
as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
indefinite because claim 4 first recites the leads connected
to the plurality of BTHs and then recites the nearby BTHs are
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007