Appeal No. 2003-1477
Application No. 09/248,533
manufactured by a copper lamination method (e.g., see lines 13-15
on page 4) rather than a silver paste screen-printing method
(e.g., see the paragraph bridging pages 3 and 4) of the type here
claimed. In light of this disclosure, the claim 4 interpretation
offered by the examiner and discussed above, though broad, is
both reasonable and consistent with the appellants’
specification. In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d at 1372-73, 54 USPQ2d at
1667-68.
For the above-stated reasons, we will sustain each of the
examiner’s § 102 rejections of claims 4-8 as being anticipated by
Prancz ‘570 and Prancz ‘424 respectively.
The § 103 rejection of claim 9 as being unpatentable over
either of the Prancz references and further in view of the
admitted prior art also will be sustained. Consistent with the
earlier mentioned statement on page 3 of the brief regarding
claim grouping, the appellants advance no arguments specific to
the feature recited in claim 9. In effect, therefore, the
rejection of this claim is sustained primarily because it has not
been contested with any reasonable specificity.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007