Appeal No. 96-1413
Application 08/134,798
the micro strip line on the right. In this sense then,
appellants’ own disclosed invention appears to read upon and
be consistent with the disadvantages asserted to exist with
the area overlap of Fig. 19(b). In the same sense, the bulk
of appellants’ Fig. 4 other than the depiction for the
resistors appears to be consistent with appellants’
characterization of the prior art in Fig. 19(a).
With this understanding in mind, appellants’
characterization that Shikata overlaps the “area” of drawing
objects is misplaced. At the top of page 9 of the principal
Brief on appeal appellants characterize the figures 8 to 13 of
Shikata as including showings that some intersections of areas
of closed drawing objects representing circuit elements are
shown. By the use of the word “some” appellants impliedly
admit there is some showing of a tangential or edge only
connection in these figures, which is consistent with our view
of the same figures.
From our study of this reference, it appears to us that
the Fig. 7 showing in Shikata shows the overlapping of areas
in some cases as well as the tangential connectivity of
certain ones of the elements at the edges only. After the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007