Appeal No. 1999-2280
Application No. 08/686,567
inapposite reasoning in any justification for the anticipation
rejection. Thus, the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 1,
2, 4, 6 through 14, 16, 18 through 24, 26 and 28 through 30 is
reversed because we agree with appellants’ argument that silicon
dioxide is not silicon.
Based upon the same reasoning, the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claims 3, 15, 25 and 31 is reversed. The 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 5, 17 and 27 is reversed because the
teachings of Petersen do not cure the noted shortcoming in the
teachings of Kubo.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007