Appeal No. 2005-0586
Application No. 09/791,634
Concerning the claimed cleaned surfaces without a
contaminated layer thereon, we find no error in the examiner's
reasoning that "it would have been obvious to one having ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made to clean the
surfaces of the individually contoured laminations of Feygin, as
taught by Burns, because clean lamination surfaces allow for a
stronger cohesion strength between laminations" (page 7 of
Answer, last sentence). Although appellants submit that "Feygin
and Burns fail to provide any disclosure or suggestion with
regard to obtaining a stronger cohesion strength based on cleaned
surfaces" (page 3 of Reply Brief, last paragraph), Burns
evidences the notoriously well-known concept of cleaning surfaces
before bonding (column 13, lines 62-63). Also, as alluded to by
the examiner, the appealed claims are drafted in product-by-
process format, and appellants have proffered no objective
evidence which establishes that micro structures within the scope
of the appealed claims are patentably distinct from the micro
structures of Feygin that would be prepared by one of ordinary
skill in the art. Furthermore, the appealed claims do not
require that the surfaces of the films be subjected to the FAB
treatment disclosed in the present specification. In addition,
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007