Appeal No. 1999-1127
Application 08/689,164
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to Appellants’ specification and claims,
to the applied prior art references, and to the respective
positions articulated by Appellants and the Examiner.
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1-4 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) nor of claims 5-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The Examiner cites Saito as the basis for a rejection of
lack of novelty for claims 1-4 and as the primary reference in
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Examiner specifically 3
cites column 2, lines 40-46 of Saito for disclosure of
“mechanical bonding” to join the first insulating layer to the
first conducting layer and to join the second conducting layer
to the first insulating layer. 4
The Appellants traverse these rejections by arguing that
(Paper No. 15, filed October 26, 1998), for the arguments
thereagainst.
3See pages 4-8 of the examiner’s answer.
4 See page 4 of the examiner’s answer.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007