Appeal No. 2002-2083
Application No. 09/430,642
A conductive material 70, preferably gold, is deposited on a top surface
and a bottom surface of the stacked contiguous layers, which in the
configuration illustrated in FIG. 4 are buried layers in the structure 44. This
conductor 70 covers at least the area bounded by the vias, i.e., the
longitudinal portion 30 of the waveguide filter 10. Consequently, the
conductor forms the horizontal sides of a waveguide filter 10 in the x-y
directions. The stack of plated contiguous layers 46 resembles a
rectangular block having gold plating on the top and bottom surfaces,
which may or may not be buried within the structure 44 illustrated in FIG.
4, as explained below. [Emphasis added.] [Piloto at column 8 lines 24-
37.]
Therefore, the conductive layer would separate two stacks, and we find that Piloto
teaches the use of a conductive layer over the a first stack and a second stack mounted
on the conductive layer, as claimed.
As pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first determine the scope of the
claim. "[T]he name of the game is the claim." In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362,1369,
47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Therefore, we look to the express language
of independent claim 9 and the examiner notes that the claim is directed to the final
product/apparatus rather than a process of manufacturing and that Piloto teaches the
claimed layered material. (See answer at page 4.) We agree with the examiner.
Additionally, we find that the term “support substrate” has not been specifically defined
in the specification. As our reviewing court states, "[t]he terms used in the claims bear
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007