REMARKS
`
`This paper is submitted as a full and complete responseto the final Office Action dated
`February 11, 2011. The Examineris respectfully requested to give due reconsideration to this
`
`application, to indicate the allowability of the claims, andto pass this case to issue.
`
`Status of the Claims
`
`Independent claims 3 and 4 are currently pending and under consideration in this
`application. Claims 3 and 4 are amended herein into independent form. Please cancel claims 1]
`and 2 without prejudice or disclaimer. No new matter is added.
`
`Response to Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`Claims 1-4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Park et al. (U.S..2003/0122989;
`“Park”) in view of Fujimura et al.
`(U.S. 5,973,763; “Fujimura”). Applicants respectfully
`traverse these rejections. Additionally, Applicants respectfully traverse that the rejections of
`claims 1 and 2 are moot in view of the cancellation these claims.
`
`Each of independentclaims3 and4recites in-part:
`“wherein the uneven surface has a plurality of concave
`surfaces, or a plurality of convex surfaces,
`the concave surfaces and the convex surfaces have a linear
`shape andare arrangedin parallel each other,
`the concave surfaces and the convex surfaces are arranged
`to be perpendicular for an elongated direction ofthe signallines”.
`
`Further, claim 3 recites “an uneven surface” “wherein a gap and a width between the concave
`surfaces or the convex surfaces of the uneven surface are not uniform”,i.e., Applicants assert the
`39
`66.
`
`unevenness distance is not uniform. Claim 4 recites “an uneven surface”
`
`“wherein the uneven
`
`surface has a plurality of concave surfaces, or a plurality of convex surfaces,” and “wherein the
`concave surfaces and the convex surfaces in the through hole have bending portions.”
`Applicants respectfully assert that at least these recitations distinguish overthe cited references.
`Applicants respectfully assert,
`that instead Park does not disclose an unevenness of
`terminal 206, as well as does not have inequality and bending portion in, e.g., Fig. 7. Thus, Park
`
`does notteach or suggest Applicants’ recitationsin claims 3 or4.
`Applicants respectfully assert that none of the cited references(i.e., Park and Fujimara)
`
`

`

`whether considered separately, or in combination, teach or suggest all claimed elements of
`
`claims 3-4. Additionally, at the time the invention was made, one ofordinary skill in the art
`
`could not and would not achieve all the features as recited in any of claims 3-4.
`
`In view of the
`
`deficiencies of the cited references, no likelihood of success in practicing Applicants’ claims
`
`exists upon combination of any of the cited references. Thus, no primafacie case of obviousness
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) exists. Applicants respectfully request the withdrawal of all rejections
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) and the allowance ofthis application.
`
`Conclusion
`
`In view of the above, Applicants respectfully request early and favorable action with
`regard to the present application, and a Notice of Allowance for all pendingclaimsis earnestly
`solicited.
`
`Should there be any outstanding issues requiring discussion which would further the
`
`prosecution and allowance of the above-captioned application, the Examineris invited to contact
`the Applicants’ undersigned representative at the address and telephone numberindicated below.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Eric G. Wright
`Registration No. 48,045 _
`
` STITES & HARBISON PLLC
`
`1199 North Fairfax Street
`Suite 900
`Alexandria, VA 22314
`Telephone: (703) 739-4900
`Customer No. 38327
`
`April 18, 2011
`
`197821 :1:ALEXANDRIA
`
`