Appeal No. 2000-0882
Application No. 08/890,582
OPINION
As a preliminary matter, we note that appellants indicate on
page 7 of the Brief that all of the claims stand or fall
together. Accordingly, we will treat the claims as a single
group with claim 1 as representative. In addition, as indicated
by the examiner (Answer, page 2), appellants' second issue,
whether the introduction of Figure 1 into the disclosure by
amendment constitutes submission of new matter, is a petitionable
matter, rather than appealable, and will not be addressed in this
decision.
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior
art references, and the respective positions articulated by
appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
will affirm the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 12 and
14 through 22.
The examiner states (Answer, page 4) that:
[A]s shown by Capote, the use of an adhesive polymer
having the claimed ranges of conductive material is
well known in the art and it would have been within the
level of ordinary skill in the art to employ any known
conductive adhesive including the claimed conductive
adhesive as desired for a printed circuit board of the
sort here involved.
The examiner further asserts (Answer, page 5) that "since Iliou
does not specify any particular conductive adhesive, it would
have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art to employ
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007