Appeal 2006-3437
Application 10/702,801
such features were known in the art of bonding, in general, and transfer
bonding, in particular. Appellants have apprised us of no unexpected results
associated with any of the bonding techniques recited in the dependent
claims. For instance, although Appellants argue that the “compliant transfer
support” of claim 8 “is not the same as 'flexible,' ‘metal’, ‘plastics’, or
‘combinations of materials,’”Appellants have provided no definition of
“compliant” to distinguish over the dictionary definition “yielding,” so as to
establish that in some way flexible, metal and plastic supports are not
compliant. The other dependent claims separately argued by Appellants
have been adequately addressed by the Examiner.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner's decision rejecting the appealed claims in
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(iv)(effective Sept.
13, 2004).
AFFIRMED
cam
McNees Wallace & Nurick, LLC
100 Pine Street
P. O. Box 1166
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1166
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Last modified: November 3, 2007