Appeal No. 1998-0510
Application 08/742,519
transmissive material enabling said exiting encapsulant
to be observed.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Wengen 3,138,657 June 23, 1964
Hickinbotham 4,708,938 November 24, 1987
Patel et al. (Patel) 5,171,813 December 15, 1992
DeCarlo et al. (DeCarlo) 5,251,373 October 12,
1993
Claims 1 and 3-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over DeCarlo in view of Wengen,
Hickinbotham, and Patel.
We refer to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 12) (pages
referred to as "FR__") and the Examiner's Answer (Paper
No. 15) (pages referred to as "EA__") for a statement of the
Examiner's position and to the Appeal Brief (Paper No. 14)
(pages referred to as "Br__") for a statement of Appellants'
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Claims 1 and 3-8 are grouped to stand or fall together
(Br3). Claim 1 is analyzed as representative.
There is no dispute that DeCarlo discloses the subject
matter of independent claims 1 and 7 except for the container
positioned over the outlet port. The Examiner finds that
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007