Appeal No. 1998-1623
Application 08/433,625
that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in
the thing described in the reference, and that it would be so
recognized by persons of ordinary skill.'" In re Robertson,
169 F.3d 743, 745, 49 USPQ2d 1949, 1950-51 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
citing Continental Can Co v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.3d 1264,
1268, 20 USPQ2d 1746, 1749 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
We note that Brady teaches in column 7, line 67 through
column 8, line 10, that the two layers blend together during
the bonding process. We note that Brady does not teach a
dissociation of the two materials nor does Brady teach
diffusion of the materials. We fail to find that the Examiner
has established that these two steps are inherent to the
method steps used by Brady. The Examiner has not shown that
these two steps are necessarily present in the process used by
Brady and it would be so recognized by a person of ordinary
skill in the art. Therefore, we will not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 21, 22, 31 and 32 under 35
U.S.C. § 102.
In regards to the rejection of claims 25, 27, 29, 30 and
33 through 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we note that in the final
13
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007