Appeal No. 1997-2686
Application 08/346,635
by the collective teachings of Eggebeen and Von Behren.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 15, 2, 9-12, 14
and 17.
We now consider the rejection of claims 3-6 based on
the teachings of Eggebeen, Von Behren and Newell. Claims 5
and 6 were grouped with claim 15 and have not been separately
argued [brief, page 7]. Therefore, we sustain the rejection
of these claims for reasons discussed above. With respect to
claims 3 and 4, appellants’ argument that Newell does not
overcome the deficiencies of Eggebeen and Von Behren is not
persuasive because there are no deficiencies in Eggebeen and
Von Behren as discussed above. However, appellants also argue
that the thickness ratios of the layers in Newell are the
opposite from the ratios set forth in these claims [brief,
page 11]. The examiner simply asserts that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the
optimal value of the thickness ratio
of the two layers by routine experimentation [answer, page
12].
We agree with appellants that the specific ratios
recited in claims 3 and 4 are not suggested by the applied
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007