Appeal No. 2005-0586
Application No. 09/791,634
the examiner that the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of
§ 103 in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we will
sustain the examiner's rejection for essentially those reasons
expressed in the Answer, and we add the following primarily for
emphasis.
There is no dispute that Feygin and Burns, like appellants,
disclose structures comprising a plurality of laminated films.
It is appellants' contention that the films of Feygin are not
directly contacted and bonded together, and that the films of
both references are not without a contaminated layer.
As for the direct contact between the bonded films, we agree
with the examiner that Feygin expressly discloses that each
lamination may consist of a single piece of metal (see column 14,
lines 54-56). Also, we concur with the examiner that Feygin's
disclosure of laminations comprising a bimaterial of steel clad
with copper or metal covered with adhesive meets the claim
requirement for direct contact since appellants acknowledge that
"the thin films may be bonded with an adhesive" (page 5 of
principal brief, second paragraph). Hence, it is fair to
interpret the appealed claims as including an adhesive layer
which brings the thin films in direct contact.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007