Appeal No. 2000-0721 Page 5
Reissue Application No. 08/628,287
• error correctable by reissue
• definiteness of claims 5-83.
Written Description of Claims 5-83
We begin by noting the following principle: “‘the PTO has
the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasons why
persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the
disclosure a description of the invention defined by the
claims.’"
In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012, 10 USPQ2d 1614, 1618
(Fed. Cir. 1989)(quoting In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 263,
191 USPQ 90, 97 (CCPA 1976)). With these principles in mind,
we consider the examiner's rejection and the appellants'
argument.
The examiner alleges, "[t]he only sidewalls including
'striations' disclosed in the specification appear to have
'longitudinally extending striations'.... [S]uch 'striations'
which are not 'longitudinally extending' would be new matter."
(Examiner's Answer at 4.) The appellants argue, "the stacked
capacitor construction of the invention is described
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007