Appeal No. 2005-0666
Application 10/044,678
685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472,
223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d
1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). Only those arguments
actually made by appellant have been considered in this decision.
Arguments which appellant could have made but chose not to make
in the brief have not been considered and are deemed to be waived
[see 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004)].
With respect to representative claim 1, the examiner
finds that Contreras teaches the claimed invention except that
Contreras fails to explicitly disclose the arrangement of the
connection points in the form of first and second rows. The
examiner cites Dandia as teaching a generic bump pattern on a
semiconductor chip. The examiner finds that it would have been
obvious to the artisan to provide the circuit board of Contreras
with connection points in the form of first and second rows as
taught by Dandia [answer, pages 4-5].
Appellant argues that Contreras does not disclose or
suggest the presently claimed invention. Appellant also argues
that Dandia does not disclose or suggest the presently claimed
invention because Dandia does not disclose a read channel system
or a head. Appellant then simply asserts the advantages of the
claimed invention [brief, pages 4-5].
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007