Appeal No. 1999-0715
Application No. 08/486,173
Appealed claims 1, 4-8 and 24 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Arndt in view of the
acknowledged state of the prior art.
Upon careful consideration of the opposing arguments
presented on appeal, we will not sustain the examiner’s
rejection.
The examiner is correct in finding that Arndt discloses
the interconnection of electrodes with a material comprising
silver and a synthetic resin (column 2, lines 12-13; column 4,
lines 6-14). Arndt does not teach the presently claimed
silver-silicone paste mixed with a hardening agent. To remedy
this deficiency of Arndt, the examiner relies upon what he
characterizes as the admitted prior art of appellants’
specification, viz, “[t]he prior art admission (N.B. page 6
lines 5-10 of appellants [sic, appellants’] specification)
establishes that both the silicone plastic adhesive and
hardening agent envisioned for use by appellants are KNOWN and
COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE” (page 4 of answer, second paragraph).
The examiner’s reliance upon the alleged prior art
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007