Appeal No. 2003-1263
Application No. 09/068,999
the presence of the semiconductor 40 in the joint, but does not
come to grips with the appellants’ argument that it is not an
insulator. The examiner acknowledges (answer, pages 4 and 5)
appellants’ argument concerning the presence of other mechanical
links in Nishizawa, but fails to address this argument. In the
absence of a response by the examiner, and the lack of any evidence
in the record that counters appellants’ arguments, we will reverse
the anticipation rejection of claims 2, 4, 5, 15 and 21.
Pursuant to the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b), the following
new rejection of claims 2, 4, 5, 15 and 21 is hereby entered.
Claims 2, 4, 5, 15 and 21 are rejected under the second
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 for indefiniteness. The use of the
preposition “on” in the claimed phrases “formed on a wafer of
material” and “formed on said wafer” implies that the first and
second parts are formed on the surface of the wafer material as
opposed to in or within the wafer material as described in the
disclosure. Thus, the claims on appeal are indefinite because they
are misdescriptive of the disclosed and claimed invention.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007