Appeal No. 2001-1115
Application No. 08/946,693
extend to the edge of the portion of board as shown. Appellants
state that such a modification would result in a non-functioning
component. We agree.
In view of the above, we therefore reverse the rejection.
III. The rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Because Nagase does not cure the deficiencies of
Marcantonio as discussed above, we reverse this rejection.
IV. The rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
obvious over Marcantonio in view of Streit and further in
view of appellants’ admitted prior art
Because the secondary references of Streit and appellants’
admitted prior art do not cure the aforementioned deficiencies
of Marcantonio, we reverse this rejection.
V. The rejection of claims 10, 11, and 15
Because the secondary reference of Rostoker does not cure
the aforementioned deficiencies of Marcantonio, we reverse this
rejection.
VI. The rejection of claims 17 through 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being obvious over Marcantonio in view of Agarwala
Because the secondary reference of Agarwala does not cure
the aforementioned deficiencies of Marcantonio, we reverse this
rejection.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007