Appeal No. 2001-0130
Application No. 09/050,491
ranging to a maximum of about ten hours; and (d) removing the
ceramic substrate from the chamber, the discrete metal-covered
area having nickel diffusion-bonded thereto. (Column 3, lines
26-46.) Park ‘942 further teaches that the process is carried
out in an inert atmosphere. (Column 6, lines 12-26.)
The examiner’s basic theory behind the conclusion of
anticipation is that the inert atmosphere described in Park ‘942
meets the limitation “at least one inert material is in floating
contact with at least a portion of said at least one receiving
metal” recited in appealed claim 1. We disagree.
As described in the specification (page 4, lines 14-30;
page 8, lines 12-23; page 10, line 10 to page 11, line 6), the
recited “inert material” is an inert “stand-off material” that
is solid. Accordingly, we find the examiner’s interpretation of
“inert material...in floating contact” as including gaseous
atmospheres to be unreasonable. It follows then that Park ‘942
does not describe each and every element of appealed claim 1.
Rejection III: 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Park ‘095
As pointed out by the examiner (answer, page 5), Park ‘095
describes a process that anticipates claim 1. Specifically,
Park ‘095 describes a process comprising: (a) providing an
ultrasonically cleaned ceramic chip carrier with tungsten
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007