Appeal 2006-1662
Application 10/453,119
wiring board 30 correspond to Appellant’s “fragile substrate” and
“reinforcement plate,” respectively (Answer 3). The Examiner further
indicated the printed wiring board 30 (i.e., the reinforcement plate) is
bonded to the ceramic substrate card 40 (i.e., the fragile substrate) with
adhesive 50. Finally, the Examiner indicated Machado’s flexible link
connector 10 (i.e., the edge-mount connector) is “mated with [ceramic]
substrate [card] 40 and the reinforcement plate [i.e., printed wiring board]
30” (Answer 3).
Appellant argues “Machado lacks any teaching that printed wiring
board 30 serves as a ‘reinforcement plate’ for the ceramic substrate card 40”
(Br. 11). In regard to this argument, Appellant contends that Machado’s
disclosure of a flexible adhesive (i.e., polysulfide adhesive 50) coupled with
Machado’s intent to use the circuitry in a missile system, where excessive
vibration and different rates of thermal expansion are present, demonstrate
that printed wiring board 30 does not reinforce ceramic substrate card 40
(Br. 11). Rather, Appellant interprets Machado as teaching an arrangement
of the ceramic substrate card 40 and the printed wiring board 30 that permits
shifting, expansion, and contraction, but not reinforcement (Br. 11).
The Examiner responds that one skilled in the art viewing Machado’s
Figure 2 would “recognize that the printed wiring board 30 [i.e.,
reinforcement plate] would inherently reinforce the ceramic substrate card
40 [i.e., fragile substrate]” (Answer 10).
We agree with the Examiner.
Machado clearly discloses that the printed wiring board 30 (i.e.,
reinforcement plate) is bonded to the ceramic substrate card 40 (i.e., fragile
substrate) (Machado, col. 5, ll. 11-14). Because the two pieces are bonded
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007