Appeal No. 1997-2859
Application 08/340,676
process limitations from the specification. We find that, in
Hilton, following the Examiner's reasoning above, the
protective layer is directly bonded to the substrate as there
is no adhesive in between the layer and the substrate.
Moreover, we also find that contrary to Appellants' views
above, epitaxial growth in Hilton results into a protective
layer being directly bonded to the substrate, since there is
no intermediate layer.
Appellants further argue [brief, pages 7 to 8 and reply
brief, page 2] that, as to the claimed limitation of “using
direct bonding,” “Applicants are entitled to use functional
language, ... which clearly defines the boundaries of the
subject matter for which protection is sought [id. 7].” The
Examiner responds [answer, page 4] that “the use of ‘direct
bonding,’ as stated above, can be reasonably interpreted to
mean any bonding which uses no intermediate layer, such as an
adhesive.” Although we agree with Appellants that they are
permitted to use functional language, we again agree with the
Examiner’s position for the same rationale as for the
limitation of “directly bonded” above. Thus, we sustain the
anticipation rejection of claim 23 over Hilton.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007