Appeal No. 95-1827
Application 07/816,157
the patentability of the apparatus is not the issue. If the
dependent claims specify a further limitation of any subject
matter claimed in the independent claim, these claims would
meet the requirement of the fourth paragraph of
§ 112. The examiner has failed to show why dependent claims
29-31 and 34 fail to further limit the subject matter of the
claims they depend upon.
For the foregoing reason, the rejection of claims 29-31
and 34 under the fourth paragraph of § 112 is reversed.
B. The Rejection over Stillman
Claims 23, 24, 32 and 33 stand rejected under §§ 102(a)
and (b) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35
U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Stillman (answer, pages 3-4,
referring to Paper No. 13 dated Feb. 8, 1994). The examiner
states that Stillman discloses an “inner cavity” and “a means
for applying an electric field” as required by appealed claim
23 (answer, page 5, and Paper No. 13, page 2). The examiner
concludes that the recitation of an electrically conductive
medium in appealed claim 23 is “an impositive [sic] element”
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007