Appeal No. 1997-3254
Application No. 08/495,330
we agree that the teaching of Berends goes against the proposition of adding a thin metal layer over the
electroconductive layer.
We conclude that the references fail to support a prima facie case for the subject matter of
Claims 7, 10, 14, and 15, and do not sustain the rejection of the claims over Berends and Sato.
Section 103 rejection over Berends and Sherman
The examiner has rejected Claim 11 over Berends and Sherman. Sherman is applied to the
claim as a teaching for electrodeposition. (See Answer, page 8.) The rejection is defective on its face,
since Claim 11 includes the limitations of Claim 10 (the addition of a thin metal layer, for which Sato
was applied in a previous rejection). In any event, Claim 11 depends from Claim 8, and we have
previously determined that the subject matter of Claim 8 is nonobvious over Berends. The Sherman
reference does not remedy the deficiencies of Berends. We therefore do not sustain the rejection of
Claim 11 over Berends and Sherman.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of Claims 1-3 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Berends is
affirmed.
The rejection of Claims 4-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Berends is affirmed.
- 10 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007