Appeal No. 2001-1572
Application 08/939,569
The examiner responds that Scholz does not disclose
whether circuit board 12 is rigid or flexible. The examiner
notes that the term “flexible” is a relative term, and that any
material is flexible if enough pressure is applied to it.
Therefore, the examiner finds that the substrate of Scholz is
flexible if enough pressure is applied. The examiner also notes
that a change in size is generally deemed to be an obvious
modification of the prior art [answer, pages 5-6].
We do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 1, 9 and 14 for the reasons argued by appellants in the
brief. The examiner’s position that Scholz teaches a flexible
dielectric substrate is not supported by the disclosure of
Scholz. Although Scholz does not state whether the substrate 12
is rigid or flexible, all the connections disclosed in Scholz
lead to the conclusion that the substrate is rigid as argued by
appellants. There is no suggestion within the disclosure of
Scholz that the substrate 12 is or should be made of a flexible
material. The examiner’s position that any substrate is flexible
if enough force is applied to it is not supported on this record
and is not a reasonable interpretation of the term “flexible.”
As noted by appellants, it is the flexible nature of the
substrate which gives rise to the electrical and mechanical
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007