Appeal No. 1997-4235
Application No. 08/464,426
over Burton, Purinton, and the “the appellant’s disclosure of
the prior art,” in view of Missel and Traut. (Id. at page 7.)1
Because the examiner’s rejections are based on an erroneous
understanding of the appellant’s admissions concerning the prior
art, we reverse the aforementioned rejections.
The examiner finds that Burton (column 2, lines 3-41;
column 3, line 14) describes a radome made by forming a thin
copper layer on a dielectric substrate, applying a photoresist,
patterning the photoresist, and etching. (Answer, page 4.)
According to Burton (column 2, lines 37-38), the “spiral lines”
of the pattern obtained after etching should “remain sharp and
distinct.” The examiner also finds that “Purinton discloses
forming a radome by etching a copper layer on a thin sheet of
dielectric material by common printed circuit board
techniques...” (Answer, page 4.)
The examiner then characterizes the differences between the
invention recited in the appealed claims and the disclosures of
Burton and Purinton as follows (id.):
Burton and Purinton differ from the appellant’s claims
mainly in that they may not disclose dimensions
associated with the layer thicknesses or pattern
tolerances, nor do Burton and Purinton disclose any
1 All other rejections as set out in the Feb. 26, 2001
final Office action (paper 24) have been withdrawn. (Answer, p.
2.)
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007