Appeal No. 2004-0760
Application No. 10/010,392
no support to the examiner’s thesis that these elements have
generally similar bending stiffnesses.
Furthermore, while listing various examples of the materials
from which the flexible substrate and the balance plate may be
made, including epoxy board or a polyimide for the flexible
substrate and copper or aluminum for the balance plate,
Maheshwari fails to teach how these various materials might be
matched to one another or, more to the point, that the Young’s
modulus of the balance plate should be greater than the Young’s
modulus of the flexible substrate. Anticipation is not
established if, as in the present case, it is necessary to pick,
choose and combine various portions of the disclosure not
directly related to each other by the teachings of the reference.
In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587-88, 172 USPQ 524, 526 (CCPA
1972).
Thus, the fair teachings of Maheshwari do not justify the
examiner’s determination that the subject matter recited in claim
5 is anticipated by the prior art. Accordingly, we shall not
sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim 5, and
dependent claims 6 through 10, 12 through 14 and 30, as being
anticipated by Maheshwari.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007