Appeal No. 95-1202
Application No. 08/106,144
the substrate extending in the direction through which the
cross-section is being taken. As a factual matter, we agree
with appellant that Figure 1.6 of Towers does not show any
electrode formed so as to be externally engagable at an end
edge portion of an insulating substrate. Thus, we necessarily
agree with appellant that Towers does not describe an
insulating substrate with first, second, and third electrodes
at end edge portions separately connected to a capacitor and
resistor (i.e, first and second passive elements) in the
manner required by appealed claim 1.
We also agree with appellant that the examiner
unreasonably construed the claim language "second passive
element" as "reading on" a structure which comprises two
separate resistive films connected by some sort of an
electrode structure. We find nothing in appellant's
specification justifying such a broad definition of a "passive
element."
The examiner's reliance on the Figure 6.5(a) embodiment
by of Towers does not remedy the stated anticipation
rejection. While the examiner argues that the need to build
electrodes at an "end edge portion of an insulating substrate"
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007