Appeal No. 1997-3884
Application No. 08/712,240
these two references. Therefore, with regard to claim 15, and its dependent claim 16, we
find the examiner has made a proper prima facie case.
With regard to claims 21 and 35, we find that each of these claims require the step
of “adding ionic species”, “in their ionic form” to the slurry. This step is not satisfied by
in situ leaching of ionized phosphorus or boron species from, for example, a glass
composition containing nonionized boron or phosphorus. No factual support exists in
this record that would have led one skilled in the art to the method step of “adding ionic
species to said ceramic green sheet . . . in their ionic form”, as required by appellants’
claims 21 and 35. Such is distinct from adding a glass frit (fluxes). Hence, we reverse
the examiner’s rejections of claims 21 and 35, including their dependent claims.
We need not consider the reference of Burn, which the examiner applied to claims
25-27, since these claims stand with claim 21.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Anderson in view of Nishigaki is affirmed.
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 21-24, 31-33, 35, 36, and 41-43
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Anderson in view of Nishigaki is reversed.
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 25-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Anderson in view of Nishigaki and further in view of Burn is reversed.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007