Appeal No. 96-3586
Application No. 08/262,848
graphic product of Altman and the sleeve label of Lawson can
be considered to correspond to such a part.
We cannot, however, agree with the examiner that the
recitation in dependent claim 15 of the release of the
encapsulated surface etchant being accomplished "over a
predetermined period of time" by the dissolution of all or
part of the encapsulating constituent renders this claim
indefinite. One of ordinary skill in this art would
understand, dependent upon the particular thickness and type
of material selected for the encapsulation of the etchant,
that the encapsulating material will dissolve and release the
etchant in a finite period of time which can be
"predetermined."
Since claim 15 is indefinite by virtue of its dependency
on claim 14, we will sustain the rejection of claims 14 and 15
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Turning to the rejection of claims 14 and 15 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over either Altman, Lawson
or Wright, we note that normally a claim which fails to comply
with the second paragraph of § 112 will not be analyzed as to
whether it is patentable over the prior art since to do so
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007