Ex Parte EGITTO et al - Page 8


              Appeal No. 2001-0106                                                                                     
              Application 08/855,811                                                                                   
              rejections over Thomson, Pleuddemann and Hahn, and the Examiner has not pointed to                       
              the missing elements, the rejections of claims 1, 3, 5, 8, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. §102                   
              over Thomson, Pleuddemann, and Hahn individually in Rejections A and B are                               
              reversed.                                                                                                
                     Turning now to the corresponding §103 rejections in Rejections A and B over                       
              Thomson, Pleuddemann, and Hahn, the Appellant states that:                                               
                     The Examiner has also rejected claims 1, 5, 8, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)                    
                     as being obvious over Thomson.  Such a rejection is not understood since, as                      
                     pointed out above, Thomson does not teach a conductive adhesive being used in                     
                     conjunction with a coupling agent and a substrate for any reason, nor is there                    
                     any reference that would suggest modifying Thomson to use a conductive                            
                     adhesive for a purpose not disclosed in any reference.  (Appeal Brief, page 7,                    
                     lines 12-16).                                                                                     
              and                                                                                                      
                     The Examiner has further rejected claims 1, 3, and 8 as obvious over either                       
                     Pluddemann [sic] or Hahn et al.  Again, there is no suggestion in either of these                 
                     references individually to modify or change the teaching of the coupling agent to                 
                     promote adhesion between a nonconductive adhesive and a substrate to the use                      
                     of a coupling agent not to improve adhesion but to improve electrical properties                  
                     between a substrate and a conductive adhesive. There just is no suggestion in                     
                     these references….(Appeal Brief, page 11, lines 8-13).                                            

                     The Examiner has provided somewhat conclusory statements in support of the                        
              §103 rejections - “Any differences which might possibly/conceivably exist between this                   
              envisioned, claimed invention and the teachings of this reference do NOT constitute                      
              patentable differences” (Examiner’s answer, page 4, lines 12-14, referring to Thomson)                   
              and  “any differences which might possibly/conceivably exist between this envisioned,                    
              claimed invention and the teachings of either of these references do not constitute                      
              patentable differences” (Examiner’s Answer, page 5, lines 3-5, referring to                              
              Pleuddemann and Hahn).                                                                                   

                                                          8                                                            



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007