Appeal 2006-1662
Application 10/453,119
together, it is reasonable to consider that some degree of reinforcement
inherently is present in Machado’s structure. Ex Parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d
1461, 1464 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1990). Because no specific degree of
reinforcement is recited in claim 1, any degree of reinforcement between the
printed wiring board 30 (i.e., reinforcement plate) and the ceramic substrate
card 40 (i.e., fragile substrate) would satisfy the claim. Accordingly, we find
that Machado anticipates Appellant’s claim 1.
Additionally, we are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument that
Machado’s bonding is flexible to allow for expansion, contraction and
shifting of the ceramic substrate card 40 and the printed wiring board 30
relative to one another (Br. 11). In fact, Machado discloses that the plates
are bonded to one another to reduce the relative displacement of one plate
with respect to the other (Machado, col. 6, ll. 30-31). Machado further states
that by bonding the corners of the ceramic substrate card 40 to the printed
wiring board 30 the “relative displacement at the corners is decreased and
therefore stress [on the wire leads 20] is decreased” (Machado, col. 6, ll. 31-
35).
Minimizing “relative displacement” between the ceramic substrate
card (i.e., fragile substrate) 40 and the printed wiring board 30 (i.e.,
reinforcement plate) necessarily implies that the ceramic substrate card (i.e.,
fragile substrate) 40 is attached to the printed wiring board 30 (i.e.,
reinforcement plate) with a bond strength sufficient to perform the
aforementioned function. We find the strength of the bond between printed
wiring board 30 (i.e., reinforcement plate) and ceramic substrate card 40
(i.e., fragile substrate) that is required to perform Machado’s aforenoted
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007