Appeal No. 1998-0820
Application No. 08/274,771
Rather than reiterate all arguments of Appellant and
Examiner, reference is made to the briefs and answer for the
respective details thereof.2
OPINION
We will not sustain the rejection of claim 2 under
35 U.S.C.§ 112, second paragraph, nor of claims 1-4 and 7-8
under 35 U.S.C.§ 112, first paragraph.
Turning first to the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, the Examiner asserts that use of the
term "conductive material" is unclear because "all materials
are 'conductive'" and "the specification sets no conductive
requirement to the protective material." Appellant responds 3
that not all materials are conductive and provides examples
that fall within that category. 4
Analysis of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, should
begin with the determination of whether claims set out and
2See the brief filed January 10, 1997 and the answer
mailed May 22, 1997.
3See page 5 of the answer.
4See page 8 of the brief.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007