Appeal No. 1999-0529
Application 08/588,800
Martin’s structure even though they are made by different
techniques. There is no evidence on this record that the
structure resulting from spacer members formed by through-
holes in a dielectric sheet is any different from the
structure resulting from simply placing a plurality of
dielectric spacer members on the surface of the substrate.
Since claim 24 is directed to a structure rather than to a
method of making the structure, we find that the structure of
claim 24 is fully met by the disclosure of Martin. Therefore,
we sustain the rejection of claims 24, 25, 2-5, 9 and 13 as
anticipated by Martin.
The second anticipation rejection rejects claims 24,
25, 2-4, 9 and 13 based on the disclosure of Ilcisin.
According to appellants, these claims stand or fall together
as a single group [brief, page 7]. Ilcisin is assigned to the
same company as Martin, and it appears to show a structure
similar to that of Martin. Appellants note the similarity
between Martin and Ilcisin and assert lack of anticipation for
the same reasons considered above with respect to Martin
[brief, page 8]. Since the anticipation issue with respect to
Martin was decided adversely to appellants, we also sustain
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007