Appeal 2006-1662
Application 10/453,119
(C.C.P.A. 1977). Because Hanato’s reinforcement plate 4 and Appellant’s
“fragile substrate” are made of the same material, it is reasonable to consider
that they must have the same material properties or characteristics (e.g.,
fragility).
Additionally, we note that “fragile” is a relative (and thus a very
broad) term. A material is “fragile” relative to another material to which it is
being compared. Appellant’s argument, that “various additives [may be
added to ceramics to] make them more or less fragile” (emphasis added)
(Reply Br. 3), further indicates the relative nature of the term “fragile.” We
note that a premise to Appellant’s argument is that ceramic is “fragile” by
nature (i.e.,that the fragility is always present though adjustable by
manipulating the additives in the ceramic). Therefore, Appellant’s argument
further bolsters the Examiner’s finding that Hanato’s ceramic reinforcement
plate 4 reasonably is considered “fragile.”
Accordingly, we find that Hanato anticipates Appellant’s claim 1.
We affirm the § 102(b) rejection over Hanato of argued claim 1 and
non-argued claims 3, 4, and 8-11.
§ 103(a) REJECTION OVER HANATO IN VIEW OF FARNSWORTH
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and further recites that the
“reinforcement plate defines notches for receiving the edge-mount
connector.”
The Examiner rejected claim 2 under § 103(a) over Hanato in view of
Farnsworth. The Examiner stated that Hanato does not disclose the
“reinforcement plate [i.e., metal plate] 5 defines notches for receiving the
edge-mount connector [i.e., connector 20]” (Answer 6). To cure this
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007