Appeal No. 2006-3241
Application No. 10/834,332
diffused to a sensitive layer 12. Tricoire col. 4, ll. 24-53. We agree with appellant to the
extent that, in view of the evidence provided, one skilled in the art would have turned to
the requisite teachings described in Tricoire only in an improper hindsight reconstruction
of the invention of instant claim 1.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. ' 112, second paragraph, as being
indefinite is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 1-4, 13, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. ' 103 as being
unpatentable over Wickersheim, Tricoire, Urbach, and Kolodner is reversed.
The examiner=s decision to reject claims 1-18 is thus affirmed.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013