Ex Parte Janecek et al - Page 2



          Appeal No. 2005-0624                                                        
          Application No. 09/853,506                                                  

                    1.   A three-layered, laminated circuit structure,                
               comprising:                                                            
                         a first substrate having conductive via through              
                         holes disposed therein;                                      
                         a second substrate laminated to said first                   
                         substrate and having conductive, adhesive-filled             
                         via through holes that align with, and make                  
                         electrical contact with, the conductive via                  
                         through holes of said first substrate; and                   
                         a third substrate laminated to said second                   
                         substrate having via through holes that align                
                         with, and make electrical contact with, the                  
                         adhesive filled via through holes of said second             
                         substrate, thus forming said three-layered,                  
                         laminated circuit structure.                                 
                                    THE REFERENCE                                     
          DiStefano et al. (DiStefano)       5,640,761        Jun. 24, 1997           
                                    THE REJECTION                                     
               Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 11, 12 and 14 stand rejected under                   
          35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by DiStefano.                       
                                       OPINION                                        
               We affirm the aforementioned rejection.                                
               The appellants indicate that the claims stand or fall                  
          together (brief, page 4).1  We therefore limit our discussion to            
               1 To the extent that the appellants’ argument that claim 5             
          requires slightly undercut conductive pads that are not disclosed by        
          DiStefano is a separate argument for patentability (brief, page 6),         
          this argument is not well taken because the appellants are arguing a        
          limitation that is not in claim 5.  See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344,          
          1348, 213 USPQ 1, 5 (CCPA 1982).                                            
                                          2                                           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007