Appeal No. 1997-3932
Application 08/435,237
dielectric layer. The Examiner does not appear to rely on
the dielectric substrate 75 as the "in situ anodization
dielectric layer," but reasons that it would have been
obvious to use a base material with an anodization
dielectric layer. However, we will not take official notice
that such materials were commonly known in the art.
Furthermore, we note that an oxide layer on aluminum or
copper is not the same thing as an "anodization dielectric
layer," which is a layer formed by specific chemical
process. Thus, more than just a showing of an aluminum
material would be required. In addition, it is not apparent
that it would have been obvious to substitute an aluminum
base coated with an in situ anodization dielectric layer
because the microstrip transmission line depends on having
the three layers of transmission line, dielectric layer, and
ground plane. Accordingly, the Examiner has not persuaded
us that Appellants' arguments as to limitations (3) and (4)
are in error.
For the reasons stated above, we conclude that the
Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
- 9 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007