Appeal No. 95-1042
Application 07/964,002
The examiner concludes that in view of the teaching by
Cleveland, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to sinter the Parks preform while it is still attached to
the support, in order to enhance the strength of the green
preform (answer, page 5). Appellants do not specifically address
this conclusion of obviousness.
Appellants argue that Park does not disclose forming a
flexible ceramic sheet (brief, page 6). Park discloses use of
green sheets which are as thin as “on the order of 1 mil” which,
as pointed out by the examiner (answer, page 4), is about 25
microns. Since this thickness is within the range thickness of
sintered films most preferred by appellants, i.e., no more than
about 30 microns (specification, page 6, lines 14-18), it appears
that thin sintered films formed by the Park process have the same
flexibility as those formed by appellants’ process.
Appellants argue that there is no proximate or remote
connection between Cleveland’s teaching and producing extremely
thin ceramic sheets, and that the skilled artisan would not look
to Cleveland for guidance regarding making thin flexible sintered
ceramic sheets (brief, page 10).
We are not persuaded by this argument because although the
ultimate product discussed in the prior art section of Cleveland
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007