Appeal No. 2005-1695
Application No. 09/817,843
It is not until column 7, lines 1 through 28, that the
manner in which this patterned metal layer/redistribution trace
30 is formed is discussed. The discussion at this location of
Elenius plainly indicates that this metal layer or film 26/30/32
is not formed as a foil nor is it laminated to the underlying
substrate-like surfaces. Column 7, lines 12 through 14 teach
that this layer is formed by metal sputtering techniques which in
the art is not consistent with the formation of a foil-like
structure that is laminated to an underlying surface. (As an
aside, the approach followed here in Elenius appears to compare
with appellants’ disclosed invention in figures 7 through
11 characterized as a patterned plated structure.)
Elenius does not otherwise appear to teach or suggest to the
artisan that a conductive foil is utilized to form the patterned
metal layer/redistribution trace 30, nor does it appear to be
laminated to any underlying surface. Since we are unable to
therefore sustain the rejection of independent claim
1 on appeal, the corresponding rejection of dependent claims
2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as well as the additional rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 35 through 37 must also be
reversed.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007