Appeal No. 1998-1096
Application No. 08/415,399
Turning to a consideration of the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection of claims 8-10 as being anticipated by Sugawara, we
reverse this rejection as well for the same reasons discussed
supra. In addressing independent claim 8, the Examiner again
has improperly dismissed the absorption reduction factor claim
language which is identical to that in claim 1. As with the
Cannella reference discussed supra, the Examiner has provided
no indication as to how Sugawara’s conductive film layer would
meet the requirements of claim 8.
As a final consideration, we turn to the Examiner’s
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of dependent claim 7 as being
unpatentable over Cannella in view of Sugawara. The Examiner,
as the basis for the obviousness rejection, proposes a
combination of Sugawara with Cannella to address the
“packaging material” limitation of claim 7. Claim 7, by
virtue of its ultimate dependence on independent claim 5,
contains all of the limitations of claim 5. From our earlier
discussion, however, it is apparent that the Examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to
claim 7 since neither Cannella nor Sugawara teaches or
suggests the claimed absorption reduction factor. Therefore,
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007