Appeal No. 2006-1449
Application No. 10/404,266
60-65 fully meet the claimed signal trace limitations. Accordingly, we will sustain the
examiner's rejection of claims 26, 30, and 34.2
Regarding claims 25, 29, and 33 (reciting a pedestal), we find that Burns amply
teaches such a feature in Fig. 2. Initially, we note that Burns' etched traces 46 are
reasonably construed as "pedestals" when the term is given its broadest reasonable
interpretation. Turning to Burns, the etched traces have a substantially constant height
and are disposed between the bottom side of PCB 40 and the upper area of the pin of
the lower IC 14. Significantly, the pin tapers downwardly relative to the trace [see
shoulder 28]. Solder 42 is disposed between the etched traces and the upper area of
the pin. Therefore, the etched trace must have a height less than the distance between
the bottom side of the PCB and one of the upper areas of one of the second pins as
claimed. The examiner's rejection of claims 25, 29, and 33 is proper and will therefore
be sustained.
2
2 As an ancillary observation, we note that no antecedent basis exists for “the first solder pads" in claims
26, 30, and 34. Because the parties did not raise these issues on appeal, they are therefore not before
us. In an ex parte appeal, "the Board is basically a board of review - we review…rejections made by
patent examiners." Ex parte Gambogi, 62 USPQ2d 1209, 1211 (B.P.A.I. 2001). Consequently, we leave
the issue of whether the appellants have satisfied the requirements of MPEP 2173.05(e) to the examiner
and the appellants.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007