Appeal No. 2001-1660
Application No. 09/146,478
view of Fukuta and Prabhu.2 Mikeska, like the claimed subject matter, relates to a method for
“reducing X-Y shrinkage during the firing of ceramic bodies” and the articles resulting therefrom.
See, e.g., column 4, lines 14-16 and 28-38. Mikeska states that (column 4, lines 39-46):
Central to the invention is the use of a flexible ceramic constraining layer which is
applied to the surface(s) of the ceramic circuit layers. The constraining layer serves
several functions: (1) it provides a uniform high friction contact layer which
substantially reduces shrinkage in the plane of the sintering part; and (2) it provides
an escape pathway for the volatile components of the ceramic tape prior to sintering.
The constraining layer of Mikeska comprises non-metallic (ceramic) particles, such as alumina,
magnesium, quartz and boron nitride, dispersed in a solid organic polymer binder. Compare column
11, lines 2-5 and 24-28 with the appellants’ claim 2. The non-metallic (ceramic) particles in the
constraining layer do not undergo sintering during the sintering of the ceramic bodies. See, e.g.,
column 11, lines 2-5 and 24-28. The constraining layer containing non-metallic (ceramic) particles
is said to have a higher sintering temperature than the ceramic bodies, thus indicating the non-
metallic (ceramic) particles as having a higher sintering temperature than that of the ceramic bodies
2 The appellants do not state that the claims on appeal do not stand or fall together. See
the Brief, page 4. Rather, the appellants state (Id.) that:
Claims 1-12 and 29 are article claims.
Claims 16-23 and 30-33 are directed to method. The article and method claims
will be separately discussed and should be separately considered in this appeal.
Therefore, for purposes of this appeal, we select claims 1 and 16 and determine the propriety of
this rejection based on these claims alone consistent with 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(2000). See also
In re McDaniel, 293 F.3d 1379, 1383, 63 USPQ2d 1462, 1465 (Fed. Cir. 2002). To the extent
that we need to address the other rejected claims, we direct attention to the examiner’s findings
and conclusions set forth in the Answer.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007