Appeal No. 2001-1115
Application No. 08/946,693
art would not know how to practice the invention based on the
disclosure given. We agree.
Secondly, on pages 3-4 of the reply brief, appellants
disagree with the examiner’s interpretation of the word “pure”
in connection with the disclosure found at lines 10 and 11 on
page 10 of the specification. The examiner states that this
word refers to the material used. (Answer, page 4.) We agree
with appellants that this is an unreasonable interpretation made
by the examiner of the word “pure” in the context of the
specification. The examiner does not show where it is disclosed
in the specification, that the word “pure”, refers to the
material used.
Hence, we agree with appellants that the phrase “pure
crossover interconnection” found on page 10 at lines 9 through
10, and as illustrated in Figure 14, is an interconnection that
only connects the solder bonding sites on the IC chip. It does
not connect the IC chip to the outside world and therefore does
not provide power and ground. In this context, appellants’
claimed item g. regarding “exclusively interconnecting said
series of IS solder bonding sites”, is enabled by the
specification as discussed above. We interpret the claims in
this manner.
In view of the above, we reverse the 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph (enablement) rejection.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007