Appeal No. 2000-0424
Application 08/760,510
Obviously, this is the case: the lead is severed between
the holes thereby not connecting them, because it only
extend[s] a short distance to either side of each hole as
clearly illustrated in appendix B [to the examiner's
answer].
Also, the blind through hole (50) is not what is
labeled as the BTH in the rejection, see appendix B [to
the examiner's answer]. Second, as seen even from
appellant's appendix D, the lead does not connect the two
BTH's [sic] shown in this figure. Sections of the lead
are connected to their respective BTH only in the
immediate vicinity of that BTH and completely
disconnected from the other BTH.
We do not understand the Examiner's reasoning. According
to the Examiner's rejection, the conductor layer 34 in Fig. 6,
corresponding to the claimed "lead for plating . . . connected
to said plurality of BTHs," extends out of the plane of the
paper and connects to a plurality of BTHs. The conductor
layer 34 must be physically (and electrically) continuous from
one BTH to the next in order to meet the limitation of being
"connected to said plurality of BTHs" and to be capable of
performing the intended use "for plating." The Examiner
cannot dismiss the limitation "for plating" as a statement of
intended use which is capable of being performed by conductor
layer 34 in Fig. 6 and, at the same time, take the
inconsistent interpretation that the conductor layer 34 is
severed between BTHs which would make the layer incapable of
- 10 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007