Appeal No. 2003-2145
Application No. 09/310,627
Appellant acknowledges that Alexander was cited for teaching the use of a
copper plug but does not teach substantially pure copper. Appellant has not established
that substantially pure copper is patentably distinct from the copper plug disclosed by
Alexander. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the suitability
of using the appropriate purity of copper for a printed circuit board.
Claims 47-52 and 62
The Examiner rejected claims 47 to 52 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over the combination of Alexander, August and Kubo; and claim 62 as unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Alexander, August, Kubo and
Hunninghaus.
We have carefully considered all of the arguments advanced by the Appellant
and the Examiner and agree with the Examiner for the reasons stated in the Answer that
the rejection of the claims is well founded. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of
claims 47-52 and 62.
Appellant argues that Alexander does not teach the same purpose for the internal
channel of the eyelet. Appellant also argues that the internal channel is too short to
conduct solder from one side of the circuit board to the other. (Brief, p. 18).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Claims 47 and 62 require a
plug that has an internal channel extending for conducting solder from one side of the
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007