Appeal No. 1996-1568
Application No. 08/235,235
Jones, Hybrid Circuit Design and Manufacture, Marcel Dekker,
Inc., New York (1982) pp. 9-49.
Claims 27 and 28 stand rejected under the second
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 for failing to particularly point
out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the
appellants regard as their invention.
Claims 1 through 4, 21 through 23 and 25 through 28 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Jones, and claim 5 stands correspondingly rejected over Jones
and further in view of Maeda.
We cannot sustain any of the above noted rejections.
Concerning the § 112, second paragraph, rejection, it is
the examiner’s position that “[i]n claims 27 and 28, the
limitation of selecting the heat treatment to control the
resistivity of the element is indefinite because deciding
whether or not said limitation is met would require a
subjective determination” (Answer, pages 3-4). We cannot
agree for generally the reasons expressed by the appellants in
their Brief and Reply Brief. More specifically, contrary to
the examiner’s belief, whether the limitation of these claims
is met is determined in dependence upon whether resistivity is
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007