Appeal No. 1998-1804
Application 08/668,291
ground of rejection ....” The examiner’s answer, which was
mailed on November 26, 1997, expressly states (sixth page)1
that the rejection of claims 26 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as depending from canceled claims is a new
ground of rejection, and further states (ninth page) that a
reply to this rejection must be filed within two months to
avoid dismissal of the claims so rejected. In a telephone
conversation on November 13, 2001 between the appellants’
counsel and a member of the board’s clerical staff, it was
confirmed that the appellants have not filed a response to the
new ground of rejection. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal
as to claims 26 and 27.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
We need to address only the independent claims, which are
claims 1 and 14. These claims both require that a planar
membrane sheet is coated with a silicone.
Natarajan discloses a method and apparatus for forming a
ceramic substrate having at least one cavity, wherein a planar
membrane sheet is placed over a cavity for subsequently being
1 The pages of the examiner’s answer are not numbered.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007