Appeal No. 2001-1115
Application No. 08/946,693
II. The rejection of claims 12-14 and 16 under
35 U.S.C. § 103
We consider claim 12 in this rejection.
The examiner’s position is set forth on pages 4-5 of the
Paper No. 11. With regard to item g. of claim 12, it is the
examiner’s position that items 28, 24 of Marcantonio, shown in
Figure 1, satisfy this aspect of appellants’ claims. On page 5
of the answer, it is clear that the examiner is interpreting the
phrase “exclusively interconnecting” of claim 12 in a manner
contrary to our claim interpretation discussed above.
On page 5 of the reply brief, appellants state that the
term “exclusively” interconnecting defines the electrical
interconnections provided on a pure crossover interconnection
substrate, which is the essence the invention. As discussed
above, the pure crossover connection is illustrated in
appellants’ Figure 14, and we interpret item g. of claim 12 in
this manner.
A comparison of appellants’ Figure 14 with a comparison of
Figure 1 of Marcantonio indicates that in fact interconnect
lines 24 and 28 do not exclusively interconnect the series of
solder bonding sites 20. That is, these interconnect lines are
connected to other circuitry (not only to bonding sites 20).
We also agree with appellants’ comments made on page 12 of
their Brief that it would have been unobvious to modify
Marcantonio such that the runner 24 would just extend between
the two solder pads 20 that are interconnected via 28, and not
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007