Appeal No. 2005-0896
Application 09/947,125
OPINION
We affirm the aforementioned rejection.
The appellants state that the claims stand or fall in three
groups: 1) claims 6-8 and 10; 2) claim 9; and 3) claims 11-14
(brief, page 4). The appellants, however, do not present a
substantive argument as to the separate patentability of the
claims in the first and third groups. Instead, the appellants
merely recite limitations of claim 11 that are in claim 6 and
assert that those limitations are not taught or suggested by the
applied references (brief, page 8). Consequently, claims 6-8
and 10-14 stand or fall together. Accordingly, we limit our
discussion to one claim in that group, i.e., claim 6, and we
separately address claim 9. See In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 1566
n.2, 37 USPQ2d 1127, 1129 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 1995); 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7)(1997).
Claim 6
Angulas discloses a circuitized substrate (13) which is on a
dielectric layer (15) and has on its upper surface conductive
pads (23) connected by solder bumps (32) and solder paste (27) to
conductors (39) that bridge apertures of a thin flexible
circuitized substrate (31) which is comprised of dielectric
material (33) having conductive layers (35) thereon (abstract;
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007