Appeal 2006-2265
Application 10/375,333
OTHER ISSUES
In the event of further or continuing prosecution of this Application,
the Examiner and Appellants should review the patentability of claim 12
with respect to the written description requirement of the first paragraph of
35 U.S.C. § 112. We note that the original disclosure of a three phase
conductive article is limited to the disclosure in the Specification at page 18,
l. 10 to page 19, l. 1. We further note that claim 12 as now written is not an
original claim. While the written description in the original specification is
limited to an embodiment where the core is an organic material and the shell
is a metal such as copper, tin or combinations thereof, claim 12 on appeal is
not limited to this embodiment but includes the metals of another
embodiment (Specification, page 18, ll. 14-17).
SUMMARY
The rejections of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Cranston or
Kang in view of McArdle or Watanabe are affirmed. Therefore the decision
of the Examiner is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007