Appeal No. 1997-1390
Application No. 08/485,199
affirmance of claims 27 and 28 under § 112, first paragraph,
but request that we reconsider our decision with respect to
the affirmance of claims 29 and 30 under § 112, first
paragraph.
Appellants acknowledge our finding in the decision that
"there is simply no description of a conductive layer that is
horizontally oriented on an annealed edge" (sentence bridging
pages 4 and 5 of Decision), but submit that because claims 29
and 30 depend upon claim 26, they "do not contain the
limitation at issue in Claim 27" (page 2 of Request).
We agree with appellants that claim 29, being dependent
upon claim 26, does not specify that the conductive layer is
horizontally oriented on an annealed edge. Accordingly, we
will grant appellants' request and modify our decision by
reversing the examiner's rejection of claim 29 under § 112,
first paragraph. However, we disagree with appellants'
assessment of claim 30, which recites "said conductive layers
are horizontally oriented and spaced apart on said annealed
edge." Hence, contrary to appellants' argument, claim 30
does, in fact, contain the limitation at issue in claim 27.
Accordingly, we deny appellants' request to modify our
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007