Appeal No. 1999-0239
Application No. 08/520,003
We agree with both of appellant's arguments. The skilled
artisan would not consider the disclosure of a single layer of
aluminum to cover multiple films, and the claims clearly
require four distinct conductive layers. There is absolutely
no basis in either Saito's or appellant's disclosure for the
examiner's interpretation of the claimed layers. Thus, as
Saito fails to disclose each and every element of the claims,
we cannot sustain the anticipation rejection of claims 1
through 4, 7, 8, and 11 through 14.
Regarding the obviousness rejection of claims 5, 6, 9,
and 10, Chen fails to cure the deficiencies of Saito discussed
above. As the combination of Saito and Chen lacks elements of
the claims, the examiner has failed to set forth a prima facie
case of obviousness. Therefore, we cannot sustain the
obviousness rejection of claims 5, 6, 9, and 10.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007