Appeal No. 96-3737
Application No. 08/203,840
We refer to the supplemental brief filed February 20,
1996 and to the answer mailed May 9, 1996 for a complete
exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by the
appellants and the examiner concerning the above noted
rejections.
OPINION
For the reasons which follow, we will not sustain any of
these rejections.
It is the appellants' basic contention that the McNeal
patent, while generally directed to a method of fabricating a
multilayer structure from a stack of layers, contains no
teaching or suggestion concerning the steps required by all
appealed claims of positioning a block of resilient, compliant
material on or over a stack recess and applying sufficient
pressure to cause the resilient, compliant material to deform
and fill the recess. We agree.
Regarding the use of a block of resilient, compliant
material, the examiner presents the following position in the
paragraph bridging pages 6 and 7 of the answer:
examiner are harmless in light of our disposition of the
subject appeal.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007