Appeal No. 1998-0338
Application No. 08/350,865
USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228
(1984), citing Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760,
772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Since APA does not
disclose any openings in the lower plate, the Examiner’s
rejection fails, and we will not sustain the rejection of
claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Likewise, we will not sustain
the rejection of claims 15 and 16 which depend from claim 14
and include the same unmet limitation.
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner reasons that it
would have been obvious to use the openings or slits of
Nishimoto in APA “to facilitate the electrical connection or
bond.” (Answer-page 5.) The Examiner states “Nishimoto
discloses that openings or slits could be used to alleviate
stress and avoid cracking a relatively rigid insulative layer
when it is in contact with a conductive layer. Therefore,
Nishimoto provides the proper motivation to support the 35
U.S.C. § 103 rejection.” (Answer-page 13.)
Appellant argues that the Examiner has used Nishimoto to
solve a problem recognized by Appellant, not known in the
prior art. Appellant contends, even if Appellant’s problem
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007