Appeal No. 2001-1889
Application No. 09/222,453
Instant claim 1 requires the step of “gluing a window to a window frame,” which
has not been shown in the reference. The claim also requires “attaching a metal
sealing ring to said ceramic package substrate.” The rejection (Answer at 5) points to
column 9, lines 40-56 (the fifth technique), which might be fairly considered “attaching a
metal sealing ring.” However, the rejection also refers (Answer at 10) to “metal”
[element 72] “sealing ring” [element 70]. Reference numeral 72 (Fig. 6) merely denotes
the upper surface of seal ring 70. Col. 8, ll. 3-11; col. 9, ll. 40-42. Moreover, seal ring
70 is not metallic. Seal ring 70 is formed of an electrically insulative material (col. 2, ll.
48-51; col. 11, ll. 21-22) such as glass (col. 6, ll. 52-60).
Instant claim 15 requires a window frame attached to a sealing ring, and a
window glued to the window frame. Since not all elements of independent claim 1, 10,
and 15, respectively, have been shown in the reference, we do not sustain the rejection
of claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Poradish.
We also do not sustain the rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Poradish and Yamada. The claim requires a window frame attached
to a sealing ring, and a glass window glued to the window frame. The teachings of
Yamada fail to remedy the basic deficiencies of the Poradish reference.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007