Appeal No. 2001-1115
Application No. 08/946,693
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Marcantonio.
Claims 17 through 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatenable over Marcantonio and further in view of
Agarwala.
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Marcantonio in view of Nagase.
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Marcantonio in view of Streit and further in
view of appellants’ admitted prior art as set forth in
appellants’ Figure 2.
OPINION
I. The U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph rejection (enablement)
and Claim Interpretation
On page 2 of Paper No. 11, the examiner rejected claim 12
(as well as claims 10 and 11), stating that the specification
does not disclose item g. of claim 12.
On pages 7 through 10 of the brief, appellants argue item
g. of claim 12 (as well as item g. of claim 21) is enabled by
appellants’ specification. Appellants state that Figure 15
shows a printed circuit conductor 55 that exclusively
interconnects the series or plurality of IS Solder bonding sites
64. Appellants also refer to Figure 13 as illustrating the
same. Appellants also refer to page 10, lines 9 and 10 of their
specification which states “an alternative arrangement using an
interconnection substrate flip chip module as a pure crossover
interconnection is shown in Fig. 14.” Appellants argue that one
skilled in the art would understand this to mean that the
crossover exclusively interconnects crossover sites and nothing
this rejection. Hence, we consider claim 12 in this rejection (claims 10 and
11 having been cancelled).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007