Appeal No. 1998-1374
Application No. 08/466,562
the prior appeal was the obviousness, in the sense of 35
U.S.C. § 103, of the copper-based paste of Claims 11 and 26.
Because the copper-based paste of prior claim 11, which is
identical to the copper-based paste in claim 1 before us, was
determined to have been obvious from the same art now before
us, we agree with the examiner that claim 1 before us would
have been obvious for the reasons expressed by the prior
merits panel in their opinion affirming the rejection of
claims 11 through 20 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Nakatani. We incorporate herein by reference thereto the
decision by the prior panel affirming the rejection of claims
11 through 20 in the prior appeal beginning with the first
full paragraph on page 6 and concluding on page 8 with the
paragraph bridging pages 7 and 8 of Paper Number 18.
In reaching the above conclusion, we have not overlooked
appellants' argument that Nakatani is not directed to copper-
pastes but to pastes where copper oxide is the main
ingredient. Appellants argue that the copper present, if any,
is produced in situ during the sintering phase and, at that
point, there is no longer a paste. We disagree. In discussing
the use of copper aluminate as the additive to enhance the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007