Appeal No. 2006-2833
Application No. 10/334,807
McKee the indicated solder balls 40 bridging solder pads between the package
and the motherboard are the true conductive bridges between the elements.
The examiner, in broadly reading claim 10, further argues that the
conductive layers of McKee (55 and 56) form a bridge between the package and
the motherboard, as the claim does not specifically state that each conductive
layer must span the gap. The claim does, however, specify that the layers are
“adapted to form a conductive bridge”, and the dielectric in the capacitor of
McKee blocks both the conduction of electricity and that interpretation of the
claim language. We are guided by In re Venezia that recited structure elements
are clearly limitations of a claim, even with the “adapted to” language (see In re
Venezia, 530 F.2d 956, 959, 189 USPQ 149, 152, (CCPA 1976). In this case the
teaching of the conductive bridge is not shown.
For the reasons stated above, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 10,
and dependent claims 11 and 12.
II. Whether the Rejection of Claims 13 and 14 Under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is proper?
Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious
over McKee in view of Prior Art (Figures 2A and 2B of the instant application).
The examiner relies on Figures 2A and 2B of the instant application to
demonstrate the dielectric in the inner construction of the capacitor and states
that said teaching, with McKee, would be adaptable to render claims 13 and 14
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007