Appeal No. 2000-2053
Application No. 08/764,353
OPINION
We have considered the rejections advanced by the Examiner
and the supporting arguments. We have, likewise, reviewed the
Appellants’ arguments set forth in the brief.
We reverse.
We consider independent claim 17 which is similar to, but
slightly broader than the independent claim 1. In response to
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 17 (answer at pages 3 and 4),
Appellants argue (brief at page 7) that:
The examiner has taken the position that the total of
the circuit board 50 an the probe card 72 mounted
thereon is to be taken as a large probe card. A fair
reading of the specification of Cherry will prove that
this is not true. The examiner...finds [in Cherry]
electronic elements mounted on the probe card while in
fact they are mounted on the circuit board 50 not probe
ring 72 (probe card).
The Examiner responds (answer at page 4) that “[a]pplicants’
definition of ‘a probe card’ is different from one of ordinary
[skill] in the art. ... The combinations of the printed circuit
board (50), the probe wires (54) and conductive lines or traces
on the printed circuit are truly a probe card.”
We direct our attention to the interpretation of the claim
because “[t]he name of the game is the claim.” In re Hiniker
Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
33
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007