Appeal No. 2000-0424
Application 08/760,510
purposes of this discussion.) The Examiner's modifications
would result in the structure at the top half of Appellant's
Fig. 3A, i.e., the top set of terminals 21, upper BTHs 10, and
(lead) wiring 13 interconnecting the BTHs 10.
The issue is whether the following limitations of claim 4
are taught or suggested by Yasuda: "wherein said lead is
severed between nearby ones of said plurality of BTHs so that
said nearby BTHs are not interconnected through said lead;
. . . and wherein said board has a plurality of holes formed
therein, each hole being formed between respective adjacent
ones of said plurality of BTHs and extending through said lead
so that said adjacent ones of said plurality of BTHs are not
interconnected through said lead." These limitations refer to
the holes 14 in Fig. 3B and 3C. Appellant argues that these
limitations are not disclosed or suggested by Yasuda
(Br15-16).
The Examiner states (EA7):
Appellant also argues that the hole does not pass
through the lead. Examiner notes that this is not a
claim limitation. Therefore, the argument is moot. The
claim states that the lead is connected to the hole (it
is as seen from figure 6 of Yasuda in appendix B [to the
examiner's answer]) and is severed between adjacent holes
so that the holes are not connected through the lead (see
claim language, for example at lines 12-13 of claim 4).
- 9 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007