Ex Parte Werner

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 30, 2003

09265479 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 30, 2003)

1 Application for patent filed March 10, 1999.
The opinion in support of the decision being
entered today was not written for publication in a
law journal and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 19
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte TRISTAN WERNER

_____________
Appeal No. 2002-0130
Application No. 09/265,4791
______________
HEARD: January 7, 2003
_______________
Before PAK, KRATZ, and JEFFREY T. SMITH, Administrative Patent
Judges.
PAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the examiner’s final rejection of claims 1 through 7, which are
all the claims pending in the above-identified application.
Appeal No. 2002-0130
Application No. 09/265,479
2
The subject matter on appeal is directed to a ferrite core
assembly wherein a ferrite core of an inductive component is
directly bonded to a metal layer via a commercially available
particular electrically conductive adhesive. See the
specification, pages 2-4 and 6-8. This electrically conductive
adhesive not only must be thermally stable within an operating
temperature range of the inductive component, but also must be
capable of reducing damping of the inductive component. See the
specification, page 1, together with claim 1. Further details
of the subject matter on appeal are defined by representative
claim 1 which is reproduced below:
1. A ferrite core assembly of an inductive component
with a defined electric potential and reduced damping
behavior, comprising:
a ferrite core of an inductive component;
a metal layer disposed on said ferrite core; and
an electrically conductive adhesive bonding said
metal layer to said ferrite core, said adhesive being
selected so as to adhere and be thermally stable within
an operating temperature range of the inductive
component.
Claims 1 through 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as anticipated by the disclosure of U.S. Patent 5,653,841 (filed
Appeal No. 2002-0130
Application No. 09/265,479
2 Indeed, page 183 of Grant & Hackh’s Chemical Dictionary, Fifth
edition, McGraw-Hill Book Company (1987)(attached herewith) defines the term
“dielectric” as “a nonconductor of electricity.”
3
April 13, 1995) issued to Krishnamurthy et al. on August 5, 1997
(hereinafter referred to as Krishnamurthy).
We reverse.
We initially observe that an anticipation under Section 102
is established only when a single prior art reference discloses,
either expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and
every element of a claimed invention. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d
705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990); RCA Corp. v.
Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ
385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
The examiner finds (Answer, page 3) that Krishnamurthy
discloses
a ferrite disk 21 ... that is dielectrically bonded to
the conductive disk 19 with and [sic, an] adhesive 22
as seen in figures 1a and 1b (col. 5, lines 15-19).
(emphasis added).
The examiner, however, has not established that the
“dielectrical” adhesive layer 22 described in Krishnamurthy is
the claimed electrically conductive layer.2 When the appellant
points to this deficiency in the examiner’s finding at pages 6
Appeal No. 2002-0130
Application No. 09/265,479
3 Conductive layer 231 is said to be directly attached to ferrite
disk 232.
4
through 9 of their Brief, the examiner refers to electrically
conductive adhesive 222 in Figure 4. See column 9, lines 7-27.
There is nothing in Krishnamurthy that such adhesive is used as
“dielectrical” adhesive layer 22 of Figures 1a and 1b. See
Krishnamurthy in its entirety. Nor would a person having
ordinary skill in the art readily envisage employing electrically
conductive adhesive 222 in Figure 4 as “dielectrical (non-
electrically conductive) adhesive layer 22 of Figures 1a and 1b.
Moreover, as is apparent from Figure 4, the electrically
conductive adhesive is employed in a different environment than
that illustrated in Figures 1a and 1b referred to by the
examiner. We find that electrically conductive adhesive 222 is
placed between compositionally identical conductive layer 2313
and ground plane 226 (e.g., a sheet or a thick layer of sputtered
copper). See column 9, lines 2-31. We observe nothing in
Krishnamurthy that describes bonding directly a ferrite disk and
a metal layer via an electrically conductive adhesive within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Appeal No. 2002-0130
Application No. 09/265,479
5
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner is
reversed.
REVERSED
CHUNG K. PAK )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
PETER F. KRATZ ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JEFFREY T. SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
CKP:vsh
Appeal No. 2002-0130
Application No. 09/265,479
6
LERNER AND GREENBERG
P.O. BOX 2480
HOLLYWOOD, FL 33022-2480