Appeal No. 96-1507
Application 08/168,185
recognized and admitted by appellant in the reply brief. The
examiner makes mention of the discussion at page 10, lines 4-6
of the specification as filed that the temporary bonding resin
“may be” the same thermosetting resin as the final bonding
material or it may be another thermosetting material. It is
further noted that the thermosetting resin limitation of the
independent claim does not necessarily exclude nor require
that solid particles of any given grain size be within that
resin material in contrast to that which is required in the
early recited feature of claim 1 on appeal of the temporary
bonding resin.
The examiner misstates at page 5 of the answer that the
“temporary bonding resin” is the same as the thermosetting
resin since the specification merely teaches that they may be
the same. Additionally, the examiner’s reasoning continues to
conclude that because of this “the combination of the resins
is equivalent to a single thermosetting resin with fillers.”
On this point, we also do not agree with the examiner. We
find ourselves in general agreement with the assertion made at
the top of page 7 of the principal brief on appeal that even
though the functions discussed in the earlier portion of that
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007