Ex parte SHI et al. - Page 3




                 Appeal No. 1998-2876                                                                                                                   
                 Application No. 08/592,930                                                                                                             

                 achieved by the orientation film positioned adjacent the film                                                                          
                 of organic semiconductor material.                                                                                                     
                          The references set forth below are relied upon by the                                                                         
                 examiner in the rejections before us:                                                                                                  


                 Masi                                                           4,106,951                                    Aug.                       
                 15, 1978                                                                                                                               
                 Akiyama et al. (Akiyama)                   1          5,468,519                                    Nov. 21,                            
                 1995                                                                                                                                   
                 Tsumura et al. (Tsumura)                                       5,500,537                                    Mar.                       
                 19, 1996                                                                                                                               
                                                                       (filed Jul. 30, 1993)                                                            
                 Kishimoto et al. (Kishimoto)                                   0 418 504                                    Mar.                       
                 27, 1991                                                                                                                               
                 (EP)                                                                                                                                   
                          Claims 1-24 stand rejected under the first paragraph of                                                                       
                 35 U.S.C. § 112 as failing to comply with the written                                                                                  
                 description requirement and/or with the enablement requirement                                                                         
                 of this paragraph.2                                                                                                                    
                          Claims 1-7, 9-18 and 20-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.                                                                     

                          1The Akiyama reference is relied upon by the examiner in                                                                      
                 support of his section 112, first paragraph, rejection.                                                                                
                          2The examiner’s basis for this rejection is unclear in                                                                        
                 that the statement of rejection reflects a written description                                                                         
                 issue whereas the discussion of the rejection by the examiner                                                                          
                 (e.g., in the “Response to Arguments” section of the answer)                                                                           
                 reflects an enablement issue.  This lack of clarity is                                                                                 
                 harmless in light of our disposition of the section 112, first                                                                         
                 paragraph, rejection.                                                                                                                  
                                                                           3                                                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007