Appeal No. 1997-3668
Application 08/395,228
1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing W. L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v.
Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309 (Fed.
Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984)).
The Examiner reasons that Burger shows the claimed
invention except for the resistors and terminals being
diffusion
type and except for an overlap of an inside corner. Murakami
discloses diffusion contacts and resistors for the purpose of
eliminating localized temperature interference caused by metal
(answer-pages 3 and 4). Thus, the Examiner states “It would
have been obvious in view of Murakami to employ diffused
terminals and resistors and the well-known resistor pattern as
disclosed therein in the device of Burger et al. for the
purpose of eliminating metal on a flexure portion, where
Burger et al. teaches that contacts and the resistor should be
a similar material, col. 2, lines 46-55, and where Murakami
disparages the use of metal contacts.” (Answer-page 5)
Appellants argue that their claims recite an overlap
of a diffusion contact region or terminal with an inside
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007