Appeal No. 2001-2628 Page 2
Application No. 09/259,888
which extends beyond the void, defining a
recess between the conductor layer and the
support layer; and then, in operation:
(e) limiting flexing movement of the support
layer toward the conductor layer by contact
with the extension portion, wherein the
support layer is allowed some range flexing
motion by the void.
Claims 1 through 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph (enablement).
OPINION
For the reasons set forth in the brief, and below, we
reverse the above-noted rejection.
On page 3 of the answer, the examiner states that
claims 1 through 18 are rejected because the specification,
while being enabling for a laminated integrated lead
suspension comprising stainless steel, polyimide, and
copper, does not reasonably provide enablement for a
laminated integrated lead suspension made of a metal support
layer, a dielectric layer, and a conductive layer. The
examiner states that the specification does not enable one
of ordinary skill in the art to make the invention
commensurate in scope with the claims.
On pages 6 through 7 of the brief, appellants point out
that original claims 1, 8, and 12 provide support for a lead
suspension comprising a metal support layer, a dielectric
layer, and a conductor layer. Also, at the bottom of page 7
of the brief, appellants state that the examiner entered an
amendment to the specification which reads “For example, as
set forth in the appended claims, the layers of the
integrated lead suspension may comprise a metal support
layer, a dielectric layer, and a conductor layer.” See page
6, lines 16 through 18 of the specification. Appellants
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007