Appeal No. 1998-2643
Application 08/549,349
form a plasma jet spray at the conditions taught by Duncan.
See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936
(Fed. Cir. 1990). The “semiconductor device” disclosed by
Duncan is generic to a “circuit” as recited in claim 41 on
appeal and, as such, Duncan would have suggested circuit
encapsulation to one of ordinary skill in the art. Note that
Duncan teaches that the high temperatures and velocities do
not deleteriously affect the thermoelectric materials of the
substrate (col. 2, ll. 28-32).
For the foregoing reasons and based on the findings set
forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of appellants’ invention to have
used successive passes of the plasma jet spray in the process
of Duncan, as well as to have determined the particle size of
the refractory and applied the encapsulation to a circuit.
Accordingly, claims 40-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Duncan.
D. Summary
The rejection of claims 33-35 and 37 under 35 U.S.C. §
112 is reversed. The rejection of claims 32, 33, 40 and 41
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007