Appeal 2006-1662
Application 10/453,119
“recognize that the metal plate 5 [i.e., reinforcement plate] would definitely
reinforce the [reinforcement] plate 4 [i.e., fragile substrate]” (Answer 11).
Appellant counters that though Hanato discloses that the reinforcing
plate 4 is ceramic, Appellant’s claim 1 does not require the fragile substrate
be ceramic (Reply Br. 3). Appellant also argues that ceramics may contain
various additives that make them more or less fragile (Reply Br. 3).
Appellant concludes that despite Hanato’s “plate 4 being ceramic”; Hanato
does not disclose that plate 4 is fragile.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Hanato discloses that reinforcement plate 4 (i.e., fragile substrate) and
metal plate 5 (i.e., reinforcement plate) are bonded to one another (Hanato,
col. 3, ll. 12-14). Because the two pieces are bonded together, it is
reasonable to consider that some degree of reinforcement inherently is
present in Hanato’s structure. Ex Parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d at 1464. Because
no specific degree of reinforcement is recited in claim 1, any degree of
reinforcement between the metal plate 5 (i.e., reinforcement plate) and the
reinforcement plate 4 (i.e., fragile substrate) would satisfy the claim.
Moreover, we are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument that Hanato’s
reinforcement plate 4 (i.e., fragile substrate in claim 1) is not fragile.
Hanato’s reinforcement plate 4 and Appellant’s claimed “fragile substrate”
are made of the same material, namely, ceramic.1 Where the claimed and
prior art products appear to be identical in structure or composition, it is
appropriate to consider that the latter necessarily has the same characteristics
as the former. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433
1 Appellant discloses that the “fragile substrate” is made of ceramic
(Specification ¶ [0011]).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007