Appeal No. 96-1802 Page 7
Application No. 08/060,922
determination that the claimed subject matter of claim 12
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Since all the limitations are not taught or suggested by
the applied prior art, we will not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of independent claim 12, and of dependent claims 2-4
and 8-10.
New grounds of rejection
Under the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b), we enter the
following new grounds of rejection.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
which the appellants regard as the invention. Claim 9 is
indefinite since there is no proper antecedent basis for "said
insulating layer." An insulating layer is recited in claim 8
but claim 9 is dependent directly from independent claim 12.
Thus, the metes and bounds of claim 9 and claim 10 dependent
thereon are unclear.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007