Appeal No. 97-2504
Application 08/200,707
of obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support for the
obviousness rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken
into consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellants'
arguments set forth in the briefs along with the examiner's
rationale in support of the rejections and arguments in rebuttal
set forth in the examiner's answers.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that the invention as recited in claim 3 is in compliance
with the second paragraph of Section 112. We are also of the
view that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the
particular art would not have suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art the obviousness of the invention as set forth in
claims 1 and 3. Accordingly, we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claim 3 under the
second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. The complete rejection and
explanation are set forth as follows:
Regarding claim 3, it is not readily apparent
whether the “colored layer” is formed with
openings to define the “recessed index area”, or
the “protective layer” formed over the colored
layer defines the claimed “recessed index area”.
[answer, page 3].
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007