Appeal No. 2001-1622 Page 11
Application No. 09/226,969
The obviousness rejection
We will not sustain the rejection of claim 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 since the examiner has not even alleged that
it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made
to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have made Wilson's
layer 18 opaque as required to meet parent claim 12.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 12 to 14 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
based on the written description requirement is reversed; the
decision of the examiner to reject claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. §
112, first paragraph, based on the enablement requirement is
reversed; the decision of the examiner to reject claims 12 to
14 under
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007