Appeal No. 97-2457 Page 7
Application No. 08/366,376
argue that neither Spindt nor Kuroda contains a suggestion to
combine Kuroda with Spindt to obtain the claimed invention.
(Id. at 11-14.)
We agree with the appellants that Kuroda fails to
disclose or fairly suggest the use of multiple substrates.
Kuroda discloses a single “composite substrate.” Kuroda, col.
3, ll. 31-32. The composite substrate comprises a “substrate
layer” 21 and an “insulating film” 36 formed on the substrate
layer. Id. at ll. 30-33. Kuroda’s defining of element 36 as
an insulating film belies the examiner’s interpretation of the
element as a second substrate. Van der Wilk also fails to
disclose or fairly suggest the use of multiple substrates.
Assuming arguendo that the prior art contained a suggestion to
combine Kuroda and Van der Wilk with Spindt, the combination
would not yield the claimed first and second substrates, with
the first substrate providing a base for a plurality of the
second substrates, as specified in claim 1. The addition of
Nomura in the rejection of claims 6 and 8 does not cure this
defect. Therefore, the examiner has not satisfied the initial
burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. For
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007