Appeal No. 95-0543
Application 08/008,734
structural equivalence, the examiner has ignored the specific
disclosure of being “mounted directly,” and has done precisely
the opposite thing from that disclosed. That is, we do not see
how the presence of layers 3, 2, 16 and 17 can be said to be
structurally equivalent to a connection which forbids the
presence of these intervening layers. In other words, the
presence of certain structure is not structurally equivalent to
the required absence of that structure.
Since we find the examiner’s interpretation of claim 8
under 35 U.S.C. § 112 to be unsupported by the record in this
case, we conclude that claim 8 is not anticipated by the
disclosure of Potter in the manner indicated by the examiner.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 8.
Claims 16 and 17 depend from claim 8 and recite that the
insulating and conducting layer of claim 8 is polycrystalline
carbon and monocrystalline carbon, respectively. The examiner
has rejected these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over the teachings of Potter for reasons discussed above. Even
though these claims depend from claim 8 and the rejection of
claim 8 as anticipated by Potter has not been sustained, we must
14
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007