Ex Parte Busletta et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 18, 2010

10853456 (B.P.A.I. May. 18, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte GALLIANO R. BUSLETTA and
ROBERT J. ROESSLER
________________

Appeal 2009-010608
Application 10/853,456
Technology Center 2800
________________

Decided: May 18, 2010
________________

Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CHARLES F. WARREN, and
TERRY J. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judges.

OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-15, which are all of the pending claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Invention
Appeal 2009-010608
Application 10/853,456

2
The Appellants claim a printed wiring board and a method for making
it. Claim 1 is illustrative:

1. A printed wiring board (PWB) for attaching electrical components
thereto, comprising:

multiple PWB insulating layers; and conductive traces located
between said insulating layers, said multiple PWB insulating layers having
an interconnect opening located therein and intersecting at least a portion of
said conductive traces, said interconnect opening having ledges therein,
wherein each of said ledges separates a first group of said conductive traces
from a second group of said conductive traces.

The References
Tsuru 5,562,971 Oct. 8, 1996
Bacon 5,835,254 Nov. 10, 1998
The Rejection
Claims 1-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Bacon in view
of Tsuru.
OPINION
We reverse the rejection.
Issue
Have the Appellants indicated reversible error in the Examiner’s
determination that Bacon discloses an interconnect opening intersecting at
least a portion of conductive traces?
Findings of Fact
Bacon discloses an electro-optic modular array (10) attached by
adhesive (54) to a ledge (52) of a recess (51) in a printed wiring board (53)
(col. 3, ll. 4-6, 13-14, 28-30; Fig. 6A). The electro-optic modular array (10)
Appeal 2009-010608
Application 10/853,456

3
is connected by first wires (32, 34) to a first electric circuit (57) on a first
side of the printed wiring board (53), and by second wires (36, 38) to a
second electric circuit (59) on a second side of the printed wiring board (53)
(col. 3, ll. 20-24; Fig. 6A).1
Analysis
The Examiner has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case
of obviousness. See In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In
re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051 (CCPA 1976).
The Examiner defines “intersecting” as “to divide into two parts by
passing through or across; cut across” (Ans. 5).
The Appellants argue that according to the Examiner’s definition of
“intersecting”, Bacon’s recess (51) does not intersect the first and second
electric circuits (57, 59) because the first and second electric circuits (57, 59)
are set back from the recess (51) such that the recess does not pass through
or across the first and second electric circuits (57, 59) (Reply Br. 2).
The Examiner argues (Ans. 5):
The intersecting does not require to have “the divide the two parts by
passing through as intersected” to be connected or contacted together,
but only formed between. So, as shown in figure 6A that shows an
opening (51) intersecting or across “at least” a portion in a middle
portion of the insulating layer (53) and the traces (57, 59), the opening
is formed across or between the traces (the traces (57, 59) are formed
on both sides and top and bottom sides of the insulating layer (53) in
which the opening being across between them). Thus, the
opening (51) is intersected or across between the traces (57, 59).

1 The Examiner does not rely upon Tsuru for any disclosure that remedies
the deficiency in Bacon as to the above-stated issue (Ans. 3-4).
Appeal 2009-010608
Application 10/853,456

4
The Examiner appears to be arguing that two things intersect if one of
them is somewhere between two portions of the other. That argument is not
consistent with the Examiner’s definition of “intersecting” which requires
dividing into two parts by passing through or cutting across. Bacon’s
recess (51) does not meet that definition because it does not divide or cut
across the first and second electric circuits (57, 59). As shown in Bacon’s
Figure 6A, if the recess (51) were not present the left and right portions of
the first and second electric circuits (57, 59) still would be separated from
each other because they are set back from the recess (51).
Conclusion of Law
The Appellants have indicated reversible error in the Examiner’s
determination that Bacon discloses an interconnect opening intersecting at
least a portion of conductive traces.
DECISION/ORDER
The rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Bacon in
view of Tsuru is reversed.
It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED

PL Initial:
sld

Appeal 2009-010608
Application 10/853,456

5
HITT GAINES P.C.
P.O. BOX 832570
RICHARDSON, TX 75083