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 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007