Appeal No. 2002-1316
Application No. 09/049,036
layer attached to the magnetic strip and an electrically
conductive gasket attached to the magnetic strip. While Rostek
arguably discloses a magnetic strip and adhesive layer in the
form of magnetic strip 28 and adhesive film 32, contrary to the
finding made by the examiner (see page 6 in the answer), Rostek
does not also disclose a distinct electrically conductive gasket
attached to the magnetic strip.
III. Remand for additional consideration by the examiner
On page 8 in the answer, the examiner states that “[e]ven if
Rostek did not meet claim 17, Harada disclose[s] it.” The
implication here that Harada might render the subject matter
recited in claim 17 unpatentable, at least under the provisions
of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), would seem to have some merit.
Unfortunately, the examiner has not entered any prior art
rejection of claim 17 based on Harada. Therefore, the
application is remanded to the examiner to enter such a rejection
if such is found to be warranted.
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 through 4, 6
and 8 through 17 is reversed and the application is remanded to
the examiner for further consideration.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007