Appeal No. 2006-1117 Page 7
Application No. 10/461,308
genus of only three materials constitutes a description of the
specific PPN layer, including the use of PET as another dielectric
layer in the web of the film structure. See In re Schaumann, 572
F.2d 312, 316, 197 USPQ 5, 9 (CCPA 1978); In re Sivaranakrishnan,
673 F.2d 1383, 1384, 213 USPQ 441, 442 (CCPA 1982). We determine
that the disclosure of Rayburn does not limit the selection of
dielectric material to only one resin but the choice of the three
resin materials is available for each dielectric film in the
multiple webs. Furthermore, Rayburn discloses that, for multiple
webs, the dielectric film of the second web should be “similar” to
the dielectric film of the first web (col. 6, ll. 41-49). Contrary
to appellants’ unsupported argument (Brief, page 6; Reply Brief,
page 3), we find no basis that “similar” means the “same.” As
correctly argued by the examiner (Answer, page 8), we find that 2
the structures of PET (an aromatic dicarboxylic acid ester) and PPN
(an aromatic dicarboxylic acid ester) would have been considered
and Reply Brief in their entirety).
2We do not agree with the examiner’s position concerning the
Rayburn embodiment where carrier tape is employed (Answer,
paragraph bridging pages 8-9) since PPN is not disclosed by
Rayburn except for embodiments where the carrier tape is omitted
(e.g., compare col. 2, ll. 28-31 with col. 2, ll. 8-12).
However, this alternative embodiment is not essential to the
rejection as discussed above.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007