Appeal No. 2002-2080
Application 09/358,484
nitride and then applying at least one layer of a past of oxide glass . . . directly onto a surface of
said sintered article.”
Appellants argue that this claim language in “[a]ll of the present claims except claim 33
recite embodiments in which oxide glass paste is applied directly onto the surface of a sintered
article of aluminum nitride,” (brief, page 6, bold emphasis in the original; see also page 5).
Appellants further submit, with respect to Kondo, that the reference “would not have suggested a
thick layer of oxide glass formed directly on an aluminum nitride substrate, as presently
claimed, since there is a thick patterned electroconductive layer already on the substrate” (id.,
page 7; bold emphasis in the original). Appellants argue with respect to Toyoda that because of
the presence of the Al2O3 layer on the aluminum nitride substrate, the reference “teaches away
from applying an oxide glass paste directly on the [aluminum nitride] substrate as presently
claimed” (id., page 8). Appellants state that “claim 21 was amended to emphasize that the thick
layer is not applied over a patterned layer, by specifying steps of ‘providing [a sintered article
. . . ] and then applying [a paste of oxide glass]’” (id., bold emphasis in the original; see also
reply brief pages 1-2). Appellants do not explain in the brief (page 9) how the same claim
language appearing in cancelled claim 33 encompasses “a surface of the sintered article . . .
[which] is oxidized before the sintered article . . . is coated with the paste of oxide glass” under
certain dew point and temperature conditions, which limitation appears therein.4
The examiner has taken the position with respect to Kondo, that the insulative oxide glass
layer “has to be applied directly onto the [aluminum nitride] substrate in order to maintain an
insulative separation between wires in the same conductive layer,” (answer, page 5; italicized
emphasis in the original), and, in this respect, “[c]ontrary to applicant’s [sic, appellants’]
argument in the second paragraph of page 8 of the appeal brief, the claims do not exclude a
patterned layer application step before the tick glass layer forming step” (id., page 6). With
respect to Toyoda, the examiner states that he disagrees with appellants’ argument “that [Toyoda]
does not teach forming thick glass layers directly on an [aluminum nitride] substrate” because
“[m]uch like [appellants’] invention, [Toyoda] has discovered that oxidation of the surface of the
4 See above p. 1. A copy of cancelled claim 33 appears in the appendix to the brief.
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007