Appeal No. 2003-1021
Application 09/507,507
possibly present, in the prior art.” Trintec Indus., Inc. v.
Top-U.S.A. Corp., 295 F.3d 1292, 1295, 63 USPQ2d 1597, 1599
(Fed. Cir. 2002) (citations omitted).
The examiner’s rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) is limited to the following statement: “The patent of
Gondusky et al., in column 5 and Figure 1 discloses applicant’s
[sic] claimed invention.” Examiner’s Answer, page 4. With
respect to claim 1, appellants argue that Gondusky does not
anticipate because the reference fails to teach one or more
discrete “layers” between the top of the intermediate region and
bottom of the body. See Appeal Brief, pages 19-20. In
particular, appellants maintain that Gondusky’s solder, braze,
epoxy or thermal adhesive used to bond layers of metal material
does not constitute a “discrete layer” as required by claim 1.
See id., page 20. We agree with appellants that Gondusky fails
to teach that the bonding material constitutes a discrete layer.
See Gondusky, column 3, lines 46-53.
With respect to the remaining independent claims 9, 16,
17 and 19, the examiner maintains that since Gondusky’s device
structurally meets the claimed limitations, it must also
inherently meet the uniform gradient language which requires that
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007