Appeal No. 2003-0599
Application 09/362,149
support of the rejections, and to appellants’ corrected brief
(Paper No. 15, filed July 2, 2002) and reply brief (Paper No. 17,
filed October 17, 2002) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants’ specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determinations which follow.
In rejecting claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite the examiner has urged (answer,
page 3) that the recitations “a spring metal layer” and “a
dielectric film” in the last clause of claim 27 are indefinite
“because it is unclear [whether] the layers previously recited in
claim 27 are referenced or entirely different layers.”
Our review of claim 27 finds no ambiguity in the recitation
of a conductor (28) comprising first (30) and second (32)
flexible conductive laminates, wherein the first conductive
laminate comprises a spring metal layer (44), a dielectric film
layer (46) and at least one pair of conductive elements (48)
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007