Appeal No. 1999-0734 Page 10
Application No. 08/686,495
much less an electrically conductive coating on the bottom surface. As the Examiner has failed
to point out where Rutt describes the required base coating, the Examiner has failed to establish a
prima facie case of anticipation with respect to the subject matter of claim 18.
Group 5: Claims 19 and 20
Claims 19 and 20 are dependent on claim 18. We conclude that the Examiner has failed
to establish a prima facie case for the reasons presented above with respect to the subject matter
of claim 18.
Obviousness over Rutt and Bergmann (Group 6: Claims 21 and 27)
Claims 21 and 27, which have been rejected as obvious, are directed to a multilayer
capacitor including a ceramic body with a comb-shaped cross-section (Claim 21). The Examiner
finds a comb-shaped cross-section in a portion of the ceramic body of Rutt (Answer at 7 showing
a highlighted area in Fig. 1 of Rutt), but this does not meet the requirements of the claims. The
ceramic body is defined in claim 21 to be the entire ceramic structure from the top surface to the
base surface (Claim 21, 1st clause). Claim 21 requires that the entire body have a comb-shaped
cross-section. The body of Rutt has a serpentine cross-section. Bergmann does not cure the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007