Appeal No. 1997-3667
Application 08/384,469
of bonding adhesives such as glass frit will cause a loss of displacement (April 8 declaration, page 7),
this does nothing to rebut the fact that JP ‘399 teaches these very characteristics. As we discussed at
length in our original opinion (pages 5 to 8), we find that JP ‘399 teaches the feature
of eliminating bonding adhesive. Accordingly, appellants’ declaration of April 8 is not found to prove
that the claimed subject matter produces superior or unexpected results when compared with the
closest prior art, JP ‘399.
Likewise, although we do find it significant that Example I (appellants’ invention: pre-sintered
and without adhesive) resulted in a warpage of less than 0.1 millimeters when compared to 1.1
millimeters of Example V (co-sintered), this only shows that pre-sintering is an important factor in
decreasing warpage. We do not find the difference in displacement between Example I (20
micrometers) and Example V (12 micrometers) to be significant, or to demonstrate superior or
unexpected results over the prior art. Thus, even though we may agree with appellants that the
declaration proves that pre-sintering the substrate minimizes undesirable warpage and slightly increases
displacement (Brief, page 6), this does nothing to rebut the fact that GB ‘647 teaches pre-sintering. As
stated in our original opinion (page 8), "we are in agreement with the examiner’s uncontradicted opinion
(Answer, page 4) that GB ‘647 teaches pre-sintering of the substrate (see GB ‘647, page 4, lines 49 to
61)" (original opinion, page 8). Accordingly, appellants’ declaration of April 8 is not found to prove
that the claimed subject matter produces superior or unexpected results when compared with the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007