Appeal No. 2005-0128
Application No. 10/120,158
REMAND
We remand this application to the examiner to consider the product by process
limitation recited in independent claim 1 as it relates to the application of prior art
applied against the claims. We note that independent claim 1 does not recite the use
of stainless steel and Hochstein teaches the use of a metal substrate. Here, appellants
have argued the difference between the prior art and the claimed invention with respect
to the “fired dielectric” and the examiner relies on the teachings of Ellis with respect to
the fired dielectric. We leave it to the examiner to consider whether the fired dielectric is
a process limitation or a structural limitation of the circuit would limit the product and
distinguish over Hochstein alone. M.P.E.P. § 2113 provides guidance on examining
product-by-process claims.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007