Appeal No. 2006-1449
Application No. 10/404,266
examiner’s rationale in support of the rejection and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the
examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the disclosure of Burns
fully meets the invention as set forth in the claims on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm.
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference discloses,
expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed
invention as well as disclosing structure which is capable of performing the recited
functional limitations. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440,
1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.); cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984); W.L. Gore
and Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed.
Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). Only those arguments actually made by
appellants have been considered in this decision. Arguments which appellants could
have made but chose not to make in the briefs have not been considered and are
deemed to be waived [see 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004)].
The examiner has indicated how the claimed invention is deemed to be fully met
by the disclosure of Burns [final rejection, pages 2 and 3]. Regarding independent
claims 1, 9, and 17, appellants argue that Burns does not disclose a plurality of raised
pads on the bottom side of the PCB as claimed [brief, page 5]. Specifically, appellants
note that lower connective elements 46 are etched traces -- not raised pads [brief,
pagers 5 and 6]. According to appellants, a trace is not a pad; therefore, Burns' etched
traces cannot constitute a raised pad as claimed [brief, pages 6 and 7].
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007