Appeal No. 95-0543
Application 08/008,734
defined. At the scope defined by the recitation of claim 3, any
pressure sintered connection of Potter would meet the language of
the claim. We also agree with the examiner that even if
appellants had set forth specific values of pressure and
temperature in the claim, the burden would still be on appellants
to demonstrate that such values of pressure and temperature do,
in fact, result in a connection which is structurally different
from the connection of Potter. The claim is directed to an
article of manufacture, and the method by which the article is
made cannot, per se, be used to assert novelty of the article.
Thus, the invention of claim 3 is fully met by the
disclosure of Potter. Since Potter anticipates the invention of
claim 3, it must necessarily also render the invention of claim 3
obvious. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 3 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) or under § 103.
We now consider the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by the disclosure of Potter. The
examiner notes that the diamond layer of Potter is mounted
directly on the copper heat sink through a possible intervening
layer as in appellants’ first and second embodiments, or that the
11
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007