Appeal No. 2006-1449
Application No. 10/404,266
conductive elements are raised in view of Burns' express teaching that the elements
may rest on surfaces 45 and 47 of the PCB. According to the examiner, because the
conductive elements rest on the surface of the PCB, one surface of the conductive
element abuts the PCB surface and the opposite surface of the conductive element is
displaced away from the PCB [answer, page 5]. The examiner concludes that such
displacement constitutes a "raised pad" as claimed [id.].
Appellants argue that merely because the conductive elements rest on the PCB's
surface does not mean that the elements are raised pads [brief, pages 7 and 8].
Appellants contend that the terms "resting" and "raised" have opposite meanings in view
of their dictionary definitions: "rest" indicates "lying down or being fixed to something"
whereas "raise" indicates "moving up or to increase in size" [brief, page 8; reply brief,
page 2]. In view of these definitions, appellants contend that because the etched traces
in Burns are "pressed down" onto the surface of the PCB, such a teaching is therefore
contradictory to raising the traces (i.e., moving them up) [brief, page 9].
We will sustain the examiner's rejection of independent claims 1, 9, and 17. We
agree with the examiner that the row of connective elements 46 (i.e., etched traces) in
Burns that rest on bottom surface 47 of PCB 40 reasonably constitutes a plurality of
raised pads on the bottom side of the PCB as claimed when the term "raised pads" is
given its broadest reasonable interpretation. As the examiner indicates, because the
connective element 46 rests on the PCB's lower surface 47, it must be displaced away
from that surface at least to some extent. We agree with the examiner that such
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007