Appeal No. 2000-1787
Application No. 08/646,735
packaging substrates (chip carriers) in a main area (to be
tested) would be selectively removable relative to the array and
an auxiliary area (location of pads). Based upon the above, we
share the examiner's view that the method of claim 1 is
anticipated by the Hargis patent.
As explained, supra, and contrary to the argument advanced
by appellants, we determined that the Hargis patent would be
understood by those versed in the art as addressing the broadly
set forth printed circuit board of claim 1. In the reply brief
(pages 1 and 2), appellants relate the numerous occurrences of
the term "printed circuit board" or "PCB" in the application, and
refer us to extrinsic evidence of record as to what was intended
by the latter term at the time of the filing of the application.
As pointed out by appellant (reply brief, page 1), there is no
requirement that a specification contain definitions of terms.
However, as in the present case, the lack of a specific
definition in the specification of the term at issue allows a
broadest reasonable interpretation to be attributed thereto. On
that basis, we consider it both fair and reasonable to comprehend
the individual electronic packaging substrates of Hargis as
printed circuit boards.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007