Appeal 2006-1662
Application 10/453,119
function (i.e., minimizing relative displacement), necessarily implies a
reinforcement relationship between them.
We affirm the § 102(b) rejection over Machado of argued claim 1 and
non-argued claims 3, 5-7, 9, and 21.
§ 102(b) REJECTION OVER HANATO
The Examiner also rejected claim 1 under § 102(b) over Hanato
(Answer 4). The Examiner stated that Hanato discloses a reinforcement
plate 4 (i.e., fragile substrate in claim 1) bonded to a metal plate 5 (i.e.,
reinforcement plate in claim 1) with connector 20 (i.e., edge-mount
connector) mated with the reinforcement plate 4 and metal plate 5 via
contact terminals 21 and 22 (Answer 5).
Appellant argues the Examiner’s interpretation of Hanato is
“unsupportable” (Br. 13). Appellant contends that Hanato’s “reinforcement
plate 4” corresponds to Appellant’s claimed “reinforcement plate” rather
than Hanato’s metal plate 5 as the Examiner indicated in his rejection (Br.
13-14). Appellant further indicates that Hanato’s reinforcement plate 4
reinforces the flexible wiring cable 10” such that plate 4 is disclosed as
performing the reinforcement (Br. 13-14). Additionally, Appellant argues
that Hanato never mentions that reinforcing plate 4 is “fragile” so it is not
reasonable for the Examiner to interpret plate 4 as corresponding to the
“fragile substrate” in the claims (Br. 14).
The Examiner responds that Hanato discloses at column 2, lines 66-68
that reinforcing plate 4 is made of ceramic, the same material Appellant uses
to make their fragile substrate (Answer 11). The Examiner also states that
one of ordinary skill in the art when viewing Hanato’s Figure 1 would
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007