Appeal No. 2005-0586
Application No. 09/791,634
the claim language "without a contaminated layer" has not been
defined in appellants' specification in such a way that it
distinguishes over surfaces that would be bonded by one of
ordinary skill in the art.
Appellants state in their Reply Brief that the Examiner's
Answer did not respond to the arguments pertaining to claims 42,
49, 60 and 62. However, appellants' attention is directed to
page 5 of the Answer, first paragraph.
As a final point, we note that appellants base no argument
upon objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected
results, which would serve to rebut the prima facie case of
obviousness established by the examiner.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well-
stated by the examiner, the examiner's decision rejecting the
appealed claims is affirmed.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007