Appeal No. 96-3037
Application No. 08/252,474
plurality of alternating conducting elements and insulating
elements, and not the insulator, as is required by the
appellant’s claims. As described in columns 6 and 7, the bore is
defined on its sides by rails 604 and 606, and on its top by
“insulation layer 636,” the details of which are not further
disclosed. Therefore, we do not agree with the examiner that
claims 1 and 12 read on the Bauer construction.
The rejection of independent claims 1 and 12, and dependent
claims 2, 6-8 and 10-12, as being anticipated by Bauer, is not
sustained.
The Rejection Under Section 103
Claim 3 stands rejected as being obvious in view of the
teachings of Bauer and Creedon. The test for obviousness is what
the combined teachings of the prior art would have suggested to
one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Claim 3 depends from
claim 1, adding the limitation that the conducting layer of the
insulator is a copper alloy. Creedon is cited for this teaching,
but it does not alleviate the deficiency in Bauer insofar as the
subject matter of claim 1 is concerned, which we have explained,
supra, with regard to the anticipation rejection. This being the
case, this rejection will not be sustained.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007