Appeal No. 1997-0439
Application 08/348,414
order to form an end surface. We find that Hartman (see Figures 1 and 2) teaches indents/contacts
101/102 and 221/222 and corresponding channels 104 and 244 which are cut or cleaved out of
substrate 100/200. Hartman teaches that the substrate of Figures 1 to 3 is "made using a variety of
fabrication methods, such as milling, chemical etching, molding, or the like" (column 2, lines 41 to 43).
We conclude that "milling" teaches or strongly suggests "cutting" as
required by representative apparatus claim 8 on appeal, and that the substrate of Hartman has been
"cut" or milled to the extent defined in appellants’ claim 8. Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of
claims 8 to 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hartman.
As to appellants’ general argument that "claims 8 - 14 are neither disclosed nor obvious in view
of Hartman" (Brief, page 6), we cannot agree with this statement in light of our discussion of the Figures
1 and 2 embodiment above. We note that appellants had the opportunity to file a Reply Brief in
response to the examiner’s reliance in the Answer on the Figures 1 and 2 embodiment of Hartman, and
failed to do so. As a result, we see no prejudice to appellants in the examiner’s reliance on the Figures
1 and 2 embodiment of Hartman in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Rejection of Claims 18 to 21 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
We turn next to method claims 18 to 21, which recite a process for making an interconnect
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007