Appeal No. 2002-2080
Application 09/358,484
We have carefully considered all of appellants’ arguments. Appellants submit that the
process of Kondo applies a thick layer of paste oxide glass over a surface containing a pattern of
electroconductive material, and thus falls outside of the appealed claims because the patterned
surface is not “a surface” of “a sintered article of aluminum nitride” as required by the appealed
claims (brief, pages 6-7 and 10). We cannot agree because as we have found (see above p. 5), the
patterned surface of Kondo would include areas of the oxide layer on which the patterned layer is
formed, and we determine here that such areas constitute “a surface” of “a sintered article of
aluminum nitride” as we have interpreted these terms above. Indeed, as pointed out by the
examiner (answer, e.g., pages 6 and 7-8), Kondo discloses process parameters for forming the
oxide layer that encompasses the same process conditions specified for the formation of an oxide
layer on the surface of an aluminum nitride containing layer in appellants’ specification. Thus,
on this record, we must conclude that Kondo would have reasonably disclosed to one of ordinary
skill in this art at least a process for preparing an aluminum nitride ceramic having a dense
smooth surface having characteristics falling within the claimed ranges, by applying a single
thick layer of paste oxide glass directly to a surface of an aluminum nitride article, which process
falls within the claimed process encompassed by appealed claim 34.
Appellants further submit that the process of Toyoda requires the presence of Al2O3 as a
surface for the application of layers of paste glass, thus teaching away from applying the paste
oxide glass directly to the aluminum nitride substrate (brief, page 8). We also cannot agree with
this position because we have interpreted the appealed claims, as here represented by appealed
claim 21, to encompass processes wherein “a surface” of “a sintered article of aluminum nitride”
can be “a surface layer with an Al2O3 layer as the major component” as provided by Toyoda
(page 4). Even if such a layer was excluded by language of appealed claim 21, this reference
would have taught one of ordinary skill in this art that layers of paste oxide glass can be applied
directly on the unmodified surface of the aluminum nitride containing substrate (page 3), and
particularly since Toyoda teaches the advantage of the oxidized layer over the unmodified layer.
We further find that Toyoda discloses the benefits of an SiO2 layer formed on the “surface oxide
layer,” which “sintered article of aluminum nitride” would have “a surface” falling within
appealed claim 21. Therefore, on this record, we conclude that at least, Toyoda would have
- 9 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007