Appeal No. 2000-0708
Application No. 08/873,973
obviousness, and we cannot sustain the obviousness rejection of
claims 1, 3 through 7, 9, 11, 13, 17, and 18.
Claims 2, 8, 10, 12, and 14 through 16 depend from claims 1
and 9 and are, therefore, non-obvious over Frankeny in view of
Lin for the same reasons discussed supra. However, claims 2, 8,
10, 12, and 14 through 16 further recite that the substrate
includes an adhesion opening that is covered by the solder mask.
Appellant (Brief, page 8) argues that the proposed combination of
Frankeny and Lin further lacks this additional limitation. Again
the examiner fails to respond with any specific teachings in the
references. Instead, the examiner clings to language in
appellant's explanation of the importance of such adhesion
openings, stating that "the features upon which appellant relies
... are not recited in the rejected claim(s)." As the examiner
has directed us to no specific disclosure of adhesion openings,
and we find none of our own accord, we cannot sustain the
obviousness rejection of claims 2, 8, 10, 12, and 14 through 16,
as the references lack the extra claim limitation of adhesion
openings.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007