Appeal No. 2004-0651
Application No. 09/898,082
With regard to claim 5, this claim requires that “the
insulating region of the first portion and the insulating region
of the second portion are put in contact with or solid-state-
bonded to each other.” Appellant contends that Kawai fails to
disclose or suggest this limitation as, in Figure 12(c), Kawai
shows insulators 1 are not in contact with one another, or solid-
state-bonded to one another.
Since the “in contact with or solid-state-bonded” is recited
in the alternative, only one need be shown in the prior art to
meet the claim language. We agree with the examiner that the two
insulator regions 1 of the first and second portions are, indeed,
“in contact with” one another via bonding member 9 and frame 10.
While appellant takes issue with this position because there is
no direct contact between the insulators, we point out that the
claim does not require such direct contact and does not preclude
other intermediate elements between the insulators forming the
contact. If appellant intended that there be direct contact with
no intermediate elements therebetween, the claim could easily
have been drafted to recite such.
Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claim 5 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007