Appeal No. 1998-0338 Application No. 08/350,865 Thus, we are not convinced by the Examiner that it would have been obvious to have made slits in APA, based on Nishimoto. Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 1, and likewise claims 2 through 8 and 10 which are dependent from claim 1 and contain the same unmet limitation. Similarly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 19 which also requires an opening in the lower conductive plate. Claims 20 through 22 depend from claim 19, thus we will not sustain the rejection of these claims. In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1 through 8, 10 and 19 through 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed; additionally, the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 14 through 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is reversed; however, the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 12, 13, 17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is affirmed. 14Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007