Appeal No. 2000-1402
Application No. 08/755,052
electrical connection with the first and second legs 40 and 42.
The examiner’s rationale appears reasonable to us.
For their part, appellants argue only that Pritchard does
not disclose or suggest “planar” metallization layers, calling
the layers and wires in Figure 2 of Pritchard “non-planar”
[brief-page 5]. However, appellants do not explain why the
layers and wires in Pritchard are not “planar,” as claimed. The
examiner points to Pritchard as showing metal strips and metal
films “which have a planar shape” [answer-page 5]; the strips and
films appear to be planar; we find nothing within Pritchard to
indicate that such strips and films are not planar; and
appellants offer no explanation as to why these strips and layers
are not to be considered planar. Accordingly, we do not find
appellants’ argument in this regard to be persuasive.
Although appellants group the claims as standing or falling
together, appellants argue the specifics of claim 5, arguing that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007