Appeal No. 2005-0430
Application No. 09/817,241
characterized as the claimed conductive base (brief, page 12).
Similarly, with respect to the rejection of claim 4, Appellants
argue that Biornard does not disclose a conductive tape including
a conductive base and a conductive sticky layer (brief, page 13).
The Examiner responds by asserting that these features are in
fact taught by Tamura where Hirasawa and Biornard are relied on
only for teaching the additional features related to a conductive
graphite paste and thickness of the dielectric film thickness,
respectively (answer, page 6).
We agree with the Examiner that the combination of Tamura
with Hirasawa or Biornard suggests the claimed subject matter.
Therefore, based on the weight of the evidence and the arguments
presented by the Examiner and Appellants, we sustain the
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 3 and 4.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007