Appeal No. 2006-0737
Reexamination Control No. 90/005,944
Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 4,847,448
The specification states that the metal deposition
layer is bonded to the tape by deposition. Although nowhere in
the specification is any particular method of deposition
described, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been aware
of metal deposition techniques such as chemical vapor deposition
or electrophoretic coating, which are used to form such shielding
layers (See, e.g. Leef, page 4, last 5 lines).
Accordingly, we agree with the Appellant that the term
“deposited” as used in these claims must be limited to a metal-
deposition method such as, e.g. chemical vapor deposition methods,
electrical deposition methods, sputtering, and the like.
Giving the term its broadest reasonable interpretation, we
also therefore find that we agree with the Appellant that the
laminate tape of JP ‘321 would not be within the scope of the term
“deposited” as used in claims 1 and 7. Therefore, the combination
of references as cited by the Examiner cannot be said to describe
the subject matter of claims 1 and 7.
Consequently, we reverse this rejection. However, we
exercise our discretion to enter a new ground of rejection as
follows.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007