Appeal No. 2005-0999
Application No. 09/939,356
However, appellants do not refute the examiner’s finding that
“[t]he term ‘contiguous’ can mean direct or indirect contact”
(page 6 of answer, first paragraph). Since appellants’
specification does not assign a particular definition to the term
“contiguous”, and one of the accepted definitions of contiguous
is “near”, we agree with the examiner that the broadest
reasonable interpretation of the claim language “contiguous” does
not result in a patentable distinction over the disclosures of
Takahashi and Pavlovic.
Appellants do not offer a separate substantive argument for
the § 103 rejection of claims 6 and 7 over Pavlovic in view of
Rosenbaum.
We will not sustain the examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims
9 and 10 over Takahashi or Pavlovic in view Pei. Claims 9 and 10
require that the mechanical fixing comprises inserting projec-
tions on the lands into the sockets of the solderable elements,
and appellants contend that the solderable elements in each of
Takahashi and Pavlovic are integrated circuit packets that “are
delicate structures which could not withstand the forces involved
in fitting a projection into a socket in an interference fit”
(page 11 of principal brief, last paragraph). While “[t]he
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007