Appeal No. 2005-2711
Application No. 10/028,015
We agree with the Examiner’s position that Guzuk provides
for a portion of the metallization layer 114 to be left uncovered
by upper portion 104/102 of the package and remains visible from
the corners of the upper portion. See Figures 1 and 4a of Guzuk.
In particular, we find appellants’ argument (reply brief, page 3)
that the claimed orientation relates only to the orientation of
the package with respect to the electrical connections to be
overreaching. The visible metallization in claim 1 is recited to
be for “indicating an orientation of said substrate” which
relates, not only to the electrical connection, but the general
orientation of the package substrate. Therefore, as stated by
the Examiner (answer, page 6), to the extent that the visible
portion of metallization layer in the prior art performs the
recited intended use, the claimed function of “indicating an
orientation of said substrate” reads on the structure disclosed
by Guzuk.
Although the Examiner’s characterization of the orientation
of the substrate appears to be different from the orientation
argued by Appellants, the claims do not require the orientation
of the package be related to only electrical connections. The
specification also refers to “orientation of the package” without
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007