Appeal No. 1997-4442
Application 08/353,040
Examiner erred. Thus, we conclude that the trimming
limitation would have been obvious.
Nevertheless, the obviousness rejection does not cure the
deficiency with respect to the lack of showing of first and
second resistance "alloy portions," as discussed in connection
with the anticipation rejection. For this reason, we conclude
that the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case
of obviousness. The rejection of claims 6 and 2 is reversed.
Claims 3 and 5 - de Wit, APA, and Mcquaid
The Examiner applies Mcquaid to show NiCrAl as a
resistance material (FR4). Appellants argue that Mcquaid
shows a resistor having one NiCrAl layer and one CrSi layer,
whereas for claim 3, "where NiCrAl is chosen, both path
portions are substantially the same composition of NiCrAl"
(Br8). The Examiner responds that the claims do not require
the path portions to have different atomic percentages of
elements (EA5).
Since Mcquaid is not applied against claim 6, we will not
consider the combination as applied to claim 6. We agree with
Appellants that claim 3, which incorporates by reference the
limitations of independent claim 6, clearly requires both path
- 9 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007