Appeal 2006-2676
Application 10/341,140
Correspondingly, in urging at page 4 of the Brief that the requirement
of claim 15 of the corresponding thickness t being only approximately
0.05mm is not met, we note that the artisan, viewing the teachings of
Takashima and the showings of the corresponding figures relied upon by the
Examiner, clearly would have recognized that the thickness may be of that
value set forth in claim 15. The reference compellingly teaches that all that
is required is the relationship B/A, as noted earlier, be a certain value. This
clearly could have been easily achievable when the thickness B of the
substrate is of the value given in claim 15. It is clear to us that the artisan
would not limit the teaching value of figure 25 relied upon by the Examiner
to the three test samples listed there of various parameters.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner rejecting
various claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013