Appeal No. 2005-2711
Application No. 10/028,015
“‘read on’ something disclosed in the prior art reference, i.e.,
all limitations of the claim are found in the reference, or
‘fully met’ by it.” See also Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190
F.3d at 1346, 51 USPQ2d at 1945 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (quoting
Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 781, 227 USPQ 773,
778 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
Appellants argue that the intermediate metallization layer
114 of Guzuk (shown in Figure 4a) does not indicate “an
orientation of said substrate,” as recited in claim 1, because
each corner of Guzuk’s package looks identical (brief, page 5).
The Examiner responds by stating that the visible portion of
metallization layer 114 “can show whether the lower package
portion is showing the wrong side up or not” (answer, page 5).
The Examiner additionally asserts that providing a visible
portion of the metallization for indicating an orientation of the
substrate is a recitation of the intended use and is met by the
prior art if the reference shows a structure that is capable of
performing that function (answer, page 6). However, in response,
Appellants contend that determining the orientation of a package
is well known in the art to be related to the orientation of the
electrical connection (reply brief, page 3).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007