Appeal No. 2003-0200 5
Application No. 09/250,524
With respect to the rejection of claim 79 the reference to Papathomas is relied
upon for its teaching of a substrate which is a flexible organic film. See Answer, page 5. It
is not directed to the issue at hand and accordingly, does not overcome the deficiency of
the primary reference.
Other Matters
The appellants in the Brief have not indicated any given place in the specification
which provides support for the critical limitation in the claimed subject matter which states,
“said flat metal terminals physically separated and different from said bonding pads.” We
are cognizant that the examiner entered a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, in the final Office action directed to a written description requirement. No
such rejection is found in the Answer. Nor has the examiner stated that the rejection was
withdrawn. The appellant, however, has commented on the rejection. See Brief, page 4.
Accordingly, the examiner may wish to reconsider whether there is written description
support for the aforesaid limitation, “physically separated and different from.” If no
support is found, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph written description
requirement should be entered by the examiner.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 57 and 80 under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as being anticipated
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007