Appeal No. 1998-0694
Application No. 08/637,009
Examiner’s Answer and Board decision(s) in the parent” [Paper
No. 39 in this file wrapper continuation].
Appellant amended each of the independent claims after the
decision by the Board and filed evidence to the effect that
the titanium silicide film of Levinstein would not suffer
agglomeration in the absence of the thermal oxide. The
examiner’s response was that the claimed invention was not
supported by the original disclosure [note supra], and the
examiner also noted that the previous decision by the Board
still applied to the present claims on appeal [Final
Rejection, page 3].
Appellant makes two central arguments in the brief.
First, appellant argues that the examiner’s challenge to the
sufficiency of the disclosure is not appropriate in
maintaining a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Second,
appellant argues that the previous decision by the Board is
not material to this application because the claims have been
amended and additional evidence has been submitted which was
not before the Board in its earlier decision. Appellant is
correct in both of these arguments.
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007