Appeal No. 2005-2558 Application No. 10/408,149 regarding patentability, with respect to a particular claim, we consider such claim in this appeal. See 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(September 2004); formerly 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(2003). Also see Ex parte Schier, 21 USPQ2d 1016, 1018 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1991). OPINION We have carefully reviewed appellants’ brief and reply brief, the examiner’s answer, and the evidence of record. This review has led us to the following determinations. I. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 26-44 Claims 26, 34, 35, and 40 Beginning on page 5 of the brief1, appellants argue the patentability of claims 26 and 35 (claim 34 depends upon claim 26 and claim 40 depends upon claim 35; hence appellants have grouped these claims together). Each of claims 26 and 35 recites a method for mounting a component including a plurality of leads wherein the method comprises, inter alia, aligning the component with the substrate such that each lead is juxtaposed with its corresponding conductive adhesive element. Figure 4 of appellants’ specification depicts the resulting electronic package. 1 We refer to the brief filed on February 18, 2005. -2-Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007