Appeal No. 2004-0706
Application No. 09/777,982
the wording involved. In short, even when given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the underlying
specification, the recitations of the surface mounted substrate-
based electrical device with an end cap termination in claims 1,
22 and 23 and the surface mounted film electrical element with an
end cap termination in claim 35 do not read on the connectors 10
and 16 disclosed by McClure. While these prior art connectors
arguably respond to certain portions of the recitations taken out
of context, they do not respond to the recitations viewed as a
whole and in light of the underlying specification.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) rejection of independent claims 1, 22 and 35, and
dependent claims 2 through 4, 10, 13, 14, 19 and 21, as being
anticipated by McClure.
As McClure, considered alone or in combination with Wafer,
would not have suggested a flex circuit arrangement meeting the
claim limitations discussed above, we also shall not sustain the
standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent claims 5
through 9, 11, 12 and 15 through 18 as being unpatentable over
McClure, or the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claim 23 and dependent claims 20 and 24 through 32 as
being unpatentable over McClure in view of Wafer.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007