Appeal No. 2000-1787
Application No. 08/646,735
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 7 through 9 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hargis in view of
Beers.
Method claim 7 expressly requires, inter alia, providing a
PCB having a PCMCIA area and auxiliary area with a plurality of
test points, populating the PCMCIA area having a plurality of
locations with a plurality of electronic components, testing the
PCMCIA area, and separating the auxiliary area from the PCMCIA
area after satisfactory testing. This claim is not identical to
claim 1, contrary to the examiner's view (answer, page 10).
At the outset, it is important to recognize that PCMCIA
circuit cards, as disclosed by appellants (specification, pages 1
through 5), use small, densely populated PCBs. Thus, a PCMCIA
PCB has a specific identifiable meaning, as particularly
addressed in the underlying disclosure.
Turning now to the collective disclosures of Hargis and
Beers, it is at once apparent to us that these documents do not
teach and would not have been suggestive of a method addressing a
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007