Appeal No. 2000-1787
Application No. 08/646,735
11), while appellants rely upon the underlying specification for
an understanding that the two main surfaces clearly denote both
sides, i.e., the top side and the underside, of the printed
circuit board (main answer, pages 20 and 21).
We share appellants' point of view that the language at
issue would be fairly well comprehended, as explained by
appellants, when read in light of the underlying specification.
It is for this reason that the rejection of claim 8 will not be
sustained.
The anticipation rejection
We sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Hargis. It follows that we likewise
sustain the rejection of claims 2 and 3 on this same ground since
as earlier indicated they stand or fall with claim 1.
Claim 1 is drawn to a method for manufacturing a printed
circuit board ("PCB") comprising; inter alia, (a) providing the
PCB, with the PCB having at least one electronic component
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007