Appeal No. 2006-0031
Application 09/377,286
that excerpt as meaning that portions of the trace and the stub also
are exposed.
The examiner argues that because both the appellant (figure 2)
and Healy (figure 2) show a stub opposite a trace, Healy’s stub is
the element required by the appellant’s claim 10 (answer, page 7).
As shown in the appellant’s figure 2, although a portion of the
trace (12) and a portion of the stub (16) are covered by a solder
mask (18), another portion of the trace and the stub can contact the
solder. Healy does not disclose that when the insulation is removed
to expose the interconnect pad, portions of the trace and stub also
are exposed. Thus, Healy does not disclose the structure in the
appellant’s figure 2.
For the above reasons we find that the examiner has not carried
the burden of establishing a prima facie case of anticipation of the
appellant’s claimed invention.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007