Appeal 97-1804
Application 08/329,042
alternatively under the last sentence of 35 U.S.C. § 132, must
be reversed.6
3. Section 102 rejection
Our construction of the meaning of "layer" in claim 1
also disposes of the examiner's anticipation rejection based
on Hens. Hens does not describe a "layer" which is an OPC
layer. Hence, Hens does not describe a "layer" within the
meaning of claim 1 on appeal. Accordingly, the examiner's
rejection based on Hens must be reversed.
C. Decision
The examiner's rejections based on the first paragraph of
35 U.S.C. § 112 and 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) are reversed.
REVERSED.
While we do not think it likely, applicant may disagree with our interpretation6
of "layer" to be limited to an "OPC layer." We are aware of In re Priest, 582 F.2d 33,
199 USPQ 11 (CCPA 1978), where the CCPA held that it was error for board to add
"inferential limitations" to applicant's claims. We place on the record our view that
if "layer" does not mean "OPC layer," then we would have affirmed the examiner's
rejection under the first paragraph 35 U.S.C. § 112.
- 22 -
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007