Appeal No. 2002-2083
Application No. 09/430,642
extrinsic evidence "must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily
present in the thing described in the reference, and that it would be so recognized by
persons of ordinary skill." In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745, 49 USPQ2d 1949,
1950-51 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citations omitted).
Appellants argue that the metal support substrate reduces the shrinkage of the
green tape in the x- and y-dimensions leaving only the shrinkage in the z-dimension.
(See brief at pages 4-6.) Appellants argue that the area set aside on the board may be
smaller so that the boards are smaller and lighter. (See brief at page 5.) Appellants
argue that the ceramic layers of Piloto are not adhered to a metal support substrate and
that Piloto does not disclose a metal support plate [substrate] at all. (See brief at page
6.) The examiner maintains that Piloto teaches the use of a conductive material
deposited on the top and bottom surface of the stacked layers. (See answer at pages 4
and 6.) The examiner maintains that the layers or plating with conductive material
would have inherently provided some support for the structure. (See answer at page 4.)
We agree with the examiner that even though the metal layer may be thin, there is an
inherent additional support (as broadly claimed) that is provided by the deposition of
metal and that the metal would be adhered in some manner to the stacked layers.
Piloto further teaches that:
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007