Claim 1 of an application refers to “an article comprising: (a) a copper substrate; and (b) an electrically insulating layer on said substrate.” The specification defines the term “copper” as being elemental copper or copper alloys. The examiner uses a prior art that recites a prior art reference that relates to an organic material that contains copper. Is this rejection proper? Explain.
In my views, the rejection does not seem to be proper. The primary reason being the examiner is being too generic with the rejection reason. He is using a prior art reference to exhibit the features of the article in question. This is not a valid approach. The examiner needs to establish clear linkage with the terms of Claim 1 of the application. He needs to specifically identify the features of the article which may be related to the terms of Claim 1 and hence cannot be approved. Such a rejection will be considered structured and accurate.
Claim 1 of an application refers to “an article comprising: (a) a copper substrate; and (b)...