Appeal 2006-1662
Application 10/453,119
The rejections as presented by the Examiner are as follows:
1. Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Machado.
2. Claims 1, 3-4, and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Hanato.
3. Claims 2, 17, 20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hanato in view of Farnsworth.
4. Claims 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Machado in view of Sakemi.
Rather than reiterate the respective positions advocated by the Appellant
and by the Examiner concerning these rejections, we refer to the Brief and
Reply Brief and to the Answer respectively for a complete exposition
thereof.
OPINION
Claims 1, 2, and 12 are the only claims argued separately by
Appellant. Accordingly, claims 1, 2, and 12 are addressed in our decision
below.
§ 102(b) REJECTION OVER MACHADO
Claim 1 is directed to a device including “a fragile substrate,” “a
reinforcement plate bonded to the substrate to reinforce the substrate” and
“an edge-mount connector mated with the substrate and the reinforcement
plate.”
The Examiner rejected claim 1 under § 102(b) over Machado. The
Examiner stated that Machado’s ceramic substrate card 40 and printed
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007