Appeal No. 1999-2822
Application No. 09/103,449
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior
art references, and the respective positions articulated by
appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
will affirm the anticipation rejection of claims 1 through 3, 6,
7, 9, and 10 but reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1
through 18.
Appellant (Brief, page 5) argues that Inaoka fails to
disclose a channel or notch " adjacent each of said terminal
contacts," as required by independent claims 1 and 6. More
specifically, appellant explains (Brief, pages 5-6) that Inaoka
includes terminal contacts in each body recess (or channel) as
well as on each body projection, the terminal contacts in the
body recesses do not have channels adjacent to them, and,
therefore, there is not a channel or notch adjacent to each
contact. Appellant thus concludes that Inaoka cannot anticipate
the claims.
We agree with appellant that Inaoka includes contacts which
are in the channels and not adjacent to channels. However,
claims 1 and 6 do not preclude such contacts. Claim 1, for
example, recites "a plurality of spaced apart terminal contacts
disposed on said surface of said substratum" and "a channel
formed in said substratum surface adjacent each of said terminal
contacts." The contacts on the projections are a plurality of
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007