Appeal No. 95-4028
Application 08/097,904
The indefiniteness rejection of claim 1 is sustained. The
indefiniteness rejection of dependent claim 16 is likewise
sustained.
The principal reason for sustaining the indefiniteness
rejection of claim 1 is also the principal reason for reversing
the indefiniteness rejection of claim 14. Appellant's argument
(Reply Brief, page 4) that claim 14 does not include the noted
"for testing" language that appears in claim 1 is correct. Claim
14 merely requires that the testing wire conductors be exposed at
an end surface of the resin package, and that an insulating means
electrically insulate the ends of the testing wire conductors.
No testing of the electronic circuit is required in claim 14.
For this reason, claim 14 and the claims that depend therefrom
are definite. The indefiniteness rejection of claims 8 through
10 and 14 is reversed.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1, 8 through
10, 14 and 16 under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is
sustained as to claims 1 and 16, and is reversed as to claims 8
through 10 and 14. In summary, the decision of the examiner is
affirmed-in-part.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007