Appeal No. 1996-3386
Application No. 08/136,123
a second conductive passage formed on said second
insulating layer to sequentially connect ends of said first
conductive passage to form a helical coil.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Kendall 3,881,244 May 06, 1975
Sato et al. (Sato) 4,743,988 May 10, 1988
Pisharody 5,189,580 Feb. 23,
1993
(filed Jan. 18, 1991)
Claims 1 through 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite.2
Claims 1 through 4, 6 through 9, 18, and 19 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sato
in view of Kendall, further in view of Pisharody for claims 4,
7/4, 8/4, 9/4, 18/7/4, and 19/7/4.
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 21,
mailed April 1, 1996) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to appellants' Brief (Paper No.
The statement of the rejection includes only claims 1 through 4.2
However, as claims 6 through 9, 18, and 19 each depend from one or more of
claims 1 through 4, they include all of the limitations and thus all of the
deficiencies under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, of claims 1 through 4,
from which they depend.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007