Appeal No. 1998-0338
Application No. 08/350,865
Thus, we are not convinced by the Examiner that it would
have been obvious to have made slits in APA, based on
Nishimoto. Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of
claim 1, and likewise claims 2 through 8 and 10 which are
dependent from
claim 1 and contain the same unmet limitation. Similarly, we
will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 19 which
also requires an opening in the lower conductive plate.
Claims 20 through 22 depend from claim 19, thus we will not
sustain the rejection of these claims.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner
rejecting claims 1 through 8, 10 and 19 through 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed; additionally, the decision of the
Examiner rejecting claims 14 through 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102
is reversed; however, the decision of the Examiner rejecting
claims 12, 13, 17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is affirmed.
14
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007