Appeal No. 2003-2021 Page 5
Application No. 09/753,703
radiation” includes at least the materials listed on pages 8-9 of
the specification.
We determine that the examiner has not met the initial
burden of establishing a prima facie case of anticipation, i.e.,
the examiner has not established by convincing reasoning or
evidence that the barrier glob top material disclosed by Akram is
“a material that absorbs electromagnetic radiation” within the
scope of claim 5 on appeal. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443,
1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Contrary to the
examiner’s finding on page 6 of the Answer, urethane is not
disclosed by appellant as having the property of absorbing
electromagnetic radiation. Appellant teaches that “lossy
urethane sheet materials” are suitable materials for absorbing
electromagnetic radiation (specification, page 9, ll. 1-2,
italics added). As correctly argued by appellants (Brief, page
4; Reply Brief, page 2), a “lossy” material is synonymous with a
material that absorbs electromagnetic radiation, indicating that
lossy urethane is urethane modified to enable the core to act
primarily as a low-resistance element, while the outside of the
material acts as a good insulator (specification, page 9, ll. 2-
4). The examiner has not provided any basis in fact or technical
reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the
urethane of Akram would necessarily be a material that absorbs
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007