Appeal No. 1996-1616
Application No. 08/158,673
claims are separately patentable. In fact, appellant has
pointed to the arguments for claim 1 for all of claims 2
through 4, 7, and 9. Accordingly, we will treat the claims as
falling into 4 groups as follows: (1) claims 1 through 4, 7,
and 9, (2) claim 5, (3) claim 6, and (4) claim 8, with claim 1
being representative of group 1.
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art references, and the respective positions articulated
by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we will reverse the indefiniteness rejection of claim
6, affirm the anticipation rejection of claim 1 and the
obviousness rejections
of claims 2 through 4, 7, and 9, and reverse the obviousness
rejection of claims 5 and 8.
With respect to the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, the examiner contends (Final
Rejection, page 1) that "it is not clear how the cathode can
include a portion of the source layer." The examiner asserts
emphasis)
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007