Appeal No. 2004-1575
Application No. 09/732,120
operatively to external electrical circuits” (column 4, lines
46-49). Significantly, we find that the examiner has presented
no evidence to refute appellants’ reasonable argument that one of
ordinary skill in the art would understand that “the primary
purpose of any circuit board, wire wrap of [sic, or] printed, is
to mount and interconnect a collection of electronic components
that comprise an electronic circuit” (page 6 of principal brief,
second paragraph). The examiner has not shouldered the burden of
establishing that one of ordinary skill in the art would accept
her broad definition of circuit board to include only a board
that “supports portions (i.e. contacts and leads) of a circuit”
(page 4 of answer, first paragraph). Particularly, the examiner
has not demonstrated that one of ordinary skill in the art would
interpret bottom plate 10d of Takano as a circuit board.
Hanna, cited by the examiner in the § 103 rejection of
claims 3-6, does not remedy the basic deficiency of Takano
outlined above.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007