Appeal No. 2001-1660
Application No. 09/146,478
1-10, together with column 1, lines 13-22. Thus, we concur with the examiner that it would have
been obvious to employ the constraining layer and rigid substrate of the type described in Mikeska
to minimize shrinkage of conventional green tapes, such as those mentioned in Fukuta.
In view of the foregoing, we affirm the examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 through 6, 11,
12, 16 through 19, 22, 23 and 29 through 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claims 7 through 12, 19 through 23 and 29
through 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as “unpatentable over the references as applied above, and further
in view of Enloe.”4 Much of the relevant disclosures of Mikeska, Prabhu and Fukuta are discussed
above. Moreover, as found by the examiner (Answer, page 8-9), Mikeska further discloses putting
one or more cavities in its green tapes as required by claim 29. See also column 14, lines 7-20.
Thus, we affirm this rejection as well.
CONCLUSION
4 The appellants state (Brief, page 4) 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.
In the context of this rejection, however, the appellants do not separately argue any specific
limitations recited in the rejected claims. See the Brief, pages 12-13. Therefore, for purposes of
this appeal, we determine the propriety of this rejection based on claim 29 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 consider claims 8, 9 and 10 separately, we
direct attention to the examiner’s findings and conclusion set forth at page 9 of the Answer.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007