Appeal No. 2006-2833
Application No. 10/334,807
obvious. However, in the context of the reversal of the rejection of parent claim
10, we find the teachings insufficient. In view of the use by McKee of solder balls
40 to establish conductive bridges from the package to the motherboard instead
of the capacitor 50, the McKee reference does not render the claim elements
obvious over the prior art.
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 13 and 14.
Conclusion
In view of the foregoing discussion, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 10, 11 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and claims 13 and 14 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JERRY SMITH ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JAY P. LUCAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007