Appeal No. 2005-2558
Application No. 10/408,149
In view of the above, we affirm the rejection of claims 28,
37, 32 and 42.
Claims 27, 29, 30, 36, 38, 39, and 44
It is the examiner’s position that it is well known in the
art to use heat, radiation exposure, or chemical exposure to
partially and fully cure a conductive adhesive. Answer, page 15.
In response, beginning on page 12 of the reply brief,
appellants argue that the examiner does not discuss why it would
have been obvious to modify Schar to use heat or radiation
exposure or chemical exposure.
We determine that the examiner has explained that because it
is well known and conventional in the art to use various types of
methods to partially and fully cure a conductive adhesive (such
as heat, radiation exposure or chemical exposure, and appellants’
do not dispute this position), it would have been obvious to use
such methods in the method of Schar.
In view of the above, we affirm the rejection of claims 27,
29, 30, 36, 38, 39 and 44.
Claims 33 and 43
On page 15 of the answer, the examiner states that with
-9-
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007