Appeal No. 2003-0053
Application No. 09/142,464
since the connection to the ceramic element would not permit electrical connection as
recited in the claims, this use of the UV resin would not have taught or suggested the
use for connection of the U-shaped end of the connection to the resonator element.
The examiner maintains that any method steps for producing the element are
irrelevant to the patentability of the product. (See answer at page 4.) We agree with
the examiner with the exception that the layers within the product must still be in the
final product and they must be in the claimed invention in the claimed manner and
location. The examiner maintains that all the reasons for use of a UV or thermosetting
epoxy for the non-conductive adhesive would be just as valid for the conductive resin.
(See answer at page 4.) While this may be true, it does not address the use of both
and the specific locations recited in the language of independent claim 1 as
distinguished by appellant at pages 7-10 of the brief. We find that the examiner has not
addressed the use of both the fixing layer and the connecting layer along with the
placement thereof on the product. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of
independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 3-7.
With respect to independent claim 14, we find the claim to have similar
limitations to the connection and fixing layers of which we have previously found that
the examiner has not addressed. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of
independent claim 14 and its dependent claims 16-20.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007