Appeal 2006-1662
Application 10/453,119
The Examiner rejected claim 12 over Machado in view of Sakemi.
The Examiner stated that Machado discloses a method of “enforcing” a
ceramic substrate card (i.e., fragile substrate) 40 by bonding a printed wiring
board (i.e., reinforcement plate) 30 to the ceramic substrate card (i.e., fragile
substrate) 40 (Answer 8). The Examiner further stated that Machado
discloses “mating the edge-mount connector [i.e., wire lead] 20 to the
reinforcement plate [i.e., printed wiring board] 30, and to the fragile
substrate [i.e., ceramic substrate card] 40” (Answer 8). The Examiner stated
that Machado does not disclose that the printed wiring board (i.e.,
reinforcement plate) 30 has notches for receiving the edge-mount connector.
The Examiner relied on Sakemi’s teaching to provide notches in order
to facilitate alignment of bond pads with their corresponding conductive
elements (Answer 8). Based on Sakemi’s disclosure, the Examiner
concluded that it would have been obvious at the time the invention was
made to modify Machado by “constructing the [reinforcement] plate [i.e.,
printed wiring board] 30 as taught by Sakemi in order to facilitate alignment
[of] the connections between [the] two conductive members” (Answer 8).
Appellant reiterates his previous arguments regarding Machado’s
failure to teach “reinforcing the ceramic substrate card 40 with the printed
wiring board 30” (Br. 16). Appellant contends that Machado allows some
degree of movement and vibration between the ceramic substrate card 40
and printed wiring board 30, such that the printed wiring board 30 cannot be
understood to reinforce the ceramic substrate card 40 (Br. 16). Appellant
also argues that Sakemi’s notches 7 are better suited to aligning a rigid
connector rather than Machado’s flexible connector (Br. 17).
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007