Appeal No. 96-1515
Application 08/161/859
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103 based on Iga taken alone. The
rejection refers to protective film 6 of Iga as being the
protective film of claim 5 [answer, page 6]. As we noted
above with respect to claims 1 and 15, the layer 6 of Iga is
not exposed to outside air as it is completely enclosed by a
resin layer 7. Therefore, this interpretation of Iga clearly
does not fully meet the invention of claim 5. The examiner
has also failed to address the obviousness of protective film
6 of Iga being formed on the outermost surface and being in
contact with outside air.
Notwithstanding the examiner’s improper interpretation
of the scope of claim 5 and the teachings of Iga, we find the
invention of claim 5 to be fully met by the disclosure of Iga.
As we noted above, claim 5 simply recites that a protective
film is formed on the outermost surface of the device and the
protective film is in contact with outside air. Instead of
looking at layer 6 of Iga which is clearly not in contact with
outside air, we consider the outer resin layer 7 which is in
contact with outside air. The only question is whether the
resin layer 7 of Iga can be considered to be a “protective
14
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007