Appeal No. 2001-0130
Application No. 09/050,491
range renders indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, was not before the Board.
For these reasons, we hold that the examiner has not
established a prima facie case of unpatentability under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Rejection II: 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Park ‘942
“To anticipate a claim, a prior art reference must disclose
every limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly or
inherently.” In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d
1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Here, we determine that Park ‘942 does not describe each
and every limitation of the invention recited in the appealed
claims. Park ‘942 describes a process for the nickel
metallization of a discrete exposed tungsten metal- or
molybdenum metal-covered area bonded to a ceramic substrate
comprising the steps of: (a) cleaning the ceramic substrate and
metal-covered area; (b) placing the cleaned ceramic substrate
and a mixture of nickel powder, powdered activator and
particulate inert filler in a chamber, the substrate not being
in contact with the mixture; (c) heating the chamber and its
contents in a non-oxidizing environment at a temperature in the
range of from about 650°C to about 1000°C for a period of time
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007