Appeal No. 1997-3932
Application 08/435,237
The Examiner finds (EA3) that the dielectric substrate
75 of the microstrip transmission line 72 constitutes an
"in situ dielectric layer." The Examiner states that
"in situ" is not limited to a process of forming (EA5).
An "in situ" process requires forming the dielectric
layer directly on the base material (specification,
pp. 11-12). The dielectric substrate in Kaiser is part of a
microstrip transmission line that is placed on the base 66
and, thus, it is not an "in situ dielectric layer."
Furthermore, because the dielectric substrate has an
underlying ground plane conductor 77, the base 66 is not
"coated" with the dielectric. The claimed structure of a
base with an "in situ" dielectric layer is different from
the structure in Kaiser. Therefore, we agree with
Appellants that claim 8 is not anticipated by Kaiser. The
rejection of claim 8 is reversed. The obviousness rejection
of claims 9 and 10 is also reversed because only Kaiser is
relied on and the Examiner has not provided any reasoning
which would overcome the deficiency noted with respect to
the anticipation rejection.
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007