Appeal No. 2005-0430
Application No. 09/817,241
necessary for the claims to “‘read on’ something disclosed in the
prior art reference, i.e., all limitations of the claim are found
in the reference, or ‘fully met’ by it.” See also Atlas Powder
Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d at 1346, 51 USPQ2d at 1945 (Fed. Cir.
1999) (quoting Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775,
781, 227 USPQ 773, 778 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
Upon our review of Tamura, we remain unconvinced by
Appellants that the relied on portion of the reference does not
teach the claimed conductive tape having a base layer and a
sticky layer. In particular, we find that Appellants’
characterization of protective tape 11 as the claimed conductive
base to be misplaced, especially, in view of the Examiner’s
explanation of the prior art teachings and the claimed elements.
Although Tamura adds insulating tape 11 over conductive tape 6 in
order to protect the tape (col. 6, line 37), it is the conductive
foil in combination with a conductive bonding agent that form
tape 6 and read on the claimed conductive tape. Therefore, we
agree with the Examiner that Tamura prima facie anticipates the
claimed subject matter of the representative independent claim 6
and dependent claim 5. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection of claims 5 and 6 is sustained.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007