Appeal No. 2001-1019
Application No. 08/928,826
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 22, mailed Nov. 21, 2000) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 21, filed Oct. 23, 2000) for
appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we reverse, for the reasons set forth by applicants.
Appellants argue that none of the prior art shows the programming of the
conductors which is a critical feature of the invention. (See brief at page 3.) We agree
with appellants. While the language of independent claim 14 does not use this express
language of “programming” as the examiner correctly points out in the answer, the
instant claim is directed to a “method of manufacturing an integrated circuit . . .” where
the claim recites that the conductors are not connected at the time of mounting and
thereafter they are connected to a conductor on the circuit using the vias. Therefore,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007