Appeal No. 2005-0646 Page 10
Application No. 10/278,184
the secondary references teaches a substrate made of polyimide or
silicone. The examiner notes that the secondary references teach
the advantages of using these materials which provides sufficient
motivation for their use [answer, page 9]. Appellants respond
that there is no evidence that the advantages of the substrate
material taught by Sato, for example, would have the same
advantages if used in the Lee substrate [reply brief, page 5].
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 19-22
for the reasons argued by the examiner in the answer. The
secondary references cited by the examiner provide advantages in
the use of polyimide and silicone substrates. The advantages
disclosed therein are sufficient to have motivated the artisan to
use such substrates in the resistor of Lee. Appellants’ argument
that there is no evidence that the advantages disclosed by the
secondary references would have the same effect in Lee is not
persuasive. The artisan would presume that the disclosed
advantages would have been retained. The burden was on
appellants to provide evidence or arguments as to why the same
advantages would not be present in Lee.
In summary, we have sustained each of the examiner’s
rejections of the claims on appeal. Therefore, the decision of
the examiner rejecting claims 15-28 is affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007