Appeal No. 95-4622
Application 08/113,665
artisan would not have regarded the sidewall regions 32a as being
a laminate with respect to base or core region 10 in the various
figures of this reference to the extent such is set forth in the
independent claim 23 on appeal. Such a structural arrangement in
Sliwa is not consistent with the ordinary and artisan’s view that
a laminate structure consists of plural stacked plates or layers.
The horizontally-arranged layers in Sliwa are not laminates in
the sense of claim 23 on appeal. As such, we must reverse the
rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in light of Sliwa
alone.
Turning lastly to the rejection of claims 46 to 49 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 in light of the collective teachings of Okuyama in
view of Kumagai, further in view of Amazawa, we sustain this
rejection. Noting first that appellant has not argued the
features of dependent claims 47 through 49, a study of Okuyama
indicates, as asserted by the examiner, that the bit lines 12 in
Figures 2 and 3 are comprised of a high melting point metal layer
and an aluminum or low melting point layer laminate. Note at
column 5, lines 8 to 11 and column 8, lines 10 to 35. Appellant
admits such as indicated at the bottom of page 6 of the principal
Brief on appeal.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007