Appeal No. 96-3737
Application No. 08/203,840
(b) applying sufficient pressure to said resilient,
compliant material to cause said resilient, compliant
material to deform and fill said at least one recess
and cause interlayer adhesion of said layers.
The references relied upon by the examiner in the
rejections before us are:
McNeal et al. 4,680,075 Jul. 14, 1987
(McNeal)
Bloechle et al. 4,737,208 Apr. 12, 1988
(Bloechle)
Takeguchi et al. 5,116,440 May 26, 1992
(Takeguchi)
Claims 1, 5 and 7 through 9 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by McNeal.
Claims 1 through 3, 5, 7 through 11, 13, 14, 16 and 18
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over
McNeal; claims 4 and 17 stand correspondingly rejected over
McNeal and further in view of Bloechle; and claims 37 through
40 stand similarly rejected over McNeal in view of Takeguchi.2
2Apparently by oversight, the examiner has failed to
include claims 6, 12, 15, 41 and 42 in any of the rejections
advanced on this appeal. Although claims 41 and 42 were
rejected over the here applied prior art in the final office
action, claims 6, 12 and 15 have never been specifically
rejected or otherwise treated by the examiner during
prosecution of this application. These failures by the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007