Appeal No. 2001-0460
Application No. 09/030,032
In reversing this rejection, as appellants make clear in the
brief and reply brief, the examiner has appeared to misconstrue
the subject matter of the claims on appeal in viewing the claimed
flexible film circuit strip as having an adjacent and non-
adjacent surface. According to the subject matter of the
disclosed and claimed invention, it is the backer plate “member”
which has been recited to have these features. The film-adjacent
surface has been identified and labeled in Figures 2 and 3 as
surface 52. Correspondingly, the film-remote or film non-
adjacent surface has been labeled in Figure 3 as surface 66.
Both surfaces are shown but not necessarily labeled in most of
the Figures 1-12. Even a brief study of the disclosed invention
yields a clear understanding, particularly to an artisan, of the
nature and meaning of the two stated surfaces in each of the
claims on appeal. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1-38 under
the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is reversed.
We also reverse the stated rejection of claims 1-16 and 19-
36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The examiner relies upon Rehbogen for
the basic teachings of the use of a flexible ribbon cable 8 which
is interconnectable to a connector 2 which in turn is mounted on
printed circuit board 14 as generally shown in Figures 1-4. As
we understand the examiner’s reasoning, this reference is not
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007