Appeal No. 2006-2317
Application No. 10/334,196
On the other hand, we fully agree with the examiner’s views expressed best
in the response to argument portion of the answer. As noted by the examiner in the
paragraph bridging pages 8 and 9 of the answer, the examiner correctly notes that
claim 1 does not recite that the conductive lines of a first device and the conductive
lines of the second device form an interface or a direct interface. The examiner
makes the point, with which we agree from our own interpretation of claim 1, that
the manner in which claim 1 is recited merely implies that two devices are bonded
through a connecting or interfacing means of conductive lines of the two devices.
The examiner correctly emphasizes that “an interface is formed between the
conductors of two devices and this interface is not exclusively formed by the
conductive lines through a direct contact between them.” The examiner again
emphasizes this point at page 10 of the answer where it is stated that “interfacing
the conductive lines of two devices is not equivalent to forming an interface
[directly] between the conductive lines of two devices. Again, it is pointed out that
the instant invention does not recites [sic recite] the conductive lines of two devices
form an [sic a direct] interface.”
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007