Appeal No. 2000-0424
Application 08/760,510
The Examiner has failed to establish the obviousness of
the limitations "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." Accordingly, we conclude that the Examiner has
failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness as to
claim 4. The rejection of claim 4 is, therefore, reversed.
Claim 8
The issue involved in claim 8 is similar to that
discussed in claim 4. Claim 8 is directed to the embodiment
of Figs. 4A and 4B where the lead 22 is connected to a
plurality of conductors 21 sideways on the surface of the
laminate, i.e., without the intermediate BTHs of the Fig. 3
embodiment. Then the lead is severed between conductors by
holes 23 (Fig. 4B).
- 12 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007