Appeal No. 95-1042
Application 07/964,002
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments advanced
by appellants and the examiner and agree with the examiner that
the invention recited in appellants’ claims 31-45, 48 and 50-55
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of appellants’ invention over the applied references.
Accordingly, the aforementioned rejections of these claims will
be affirmed. However, we agree with appellants that the
rejection of claims 46 and 47 is not well founded. We therefore
will reverse this rejection.
At the outset, we note that appellants state that the claims
stand or fall in two groups, wherein the first group is claims
31-45, 48 and 50-55, and the second group is claims 46 and 47.
We therefore limit our discussion to one claim within each group,
namely, claims 31 and 46. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.192(c)(5)(1993).2
Appellants’ invention as recited in claim 31 is a method for
making a flexible inorganic sintered sheet or tape. The method
includes mixing a fluid batch of an inorganic powder and one or
more vehicles, forming the batch on a fugitive polymer support
into an elongated green sheet or tape preform having an aspect
2A discussion of Ohtaki and Huang is not necessary to our
decision.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007