Appeal No. 1997-0068
Application 07/923,278
In light of the foregoing, we shall sustain the standing
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of 43 as being anticipated by
Pomerantz but not the standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of
claims 24 through 26, 28, 30 through 34 and 36 through 42 as
being anticipated by Pomerantz. 3
Finally, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. §
103 rejection of dependent claims 27, 29 and 35 as being
unpatentable over Pomerantz. In addition to not disclosing an
apparatus meeting the limitations in parent claims 24 and 34
relating to the first dispenser or controlled dispensing
device, Pomerantz would not have suggested such an apparatus
to one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, the examiner’s
conclusion that the subject matter recited in claims 27, 29
and 35 would have been obvious within the meaning of § 103 is
unfounded.
3 We note that claim 43 is inconsistent with the
underlying specification to the extent that it defines the
second dispenser recited therein as having a planarizing
function. In the event of further prosecution, the examiner
may wish to consider whether this inconsistency warrants a
rejection under the first and/or second paragraphs of 35
U.S.C. § 112. We also note that the two “means” recited in
dependent claim 25 appear to be readable on the same planing
apparatus structure disclosed in the specification.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007