Appeal No. 2004-0283
Application No. 09/12,638
In the rejection of the appealed claims, the examiner does
not rely upon prior art.
Appellants' claimed invention is directed to a component for
use in manufacturing printed circuit boards. The component
comprises a sheet of copper foil in contact with a metal support
and having provided on its other surface a partially cured,
preformed adhesive epoxy resin film. Allowed claim 53 specifies
only one sheet of copper foil in contact with the metal support.
Appealed claims 61 and 62, which depend upon allowed claim 53,
further define copper sheets on each side of the metal substrate.
Appealed claims 61 and 62 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, description requirement.
Appellants submit at page 3 of the principal brief that
"[c]laims 61 and 62 stand or fall together."
We have thoroughly reviewed the respective positions
advanced by appellants and the examiner. In so doing, we find
ourselves in agreement with appellants that claims 61 and 62 do
not run afoul of the description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph. Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner's
rejection.
According to the examiner, since the appealed claims "would
encompass laminates having one coated copper foil sheet and one
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007