Appeal No. 2000-1085
Application No. 08/980,349
been indicated to be allowable if rewritten in independent form
including all of the limitations of the base claim and any
intervening claims.
According to appellant (Brief, page 2), “[s]eparate
consideration is respectfully requested for claims 5-7. Separate
arguments in support of patentability for these claims are
advanced below.” The appellant, however, has not supplied any
separate substantive argument as to the patentability of the
subject matter recited in claims 5 through 7. Therefore, for
purposes of this appeal, we select claim 1 from all of the claims
on appeal and determine the propriety of the examiner’s
rejections based on this claim alone consistent with 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7)(1999) . Claim 1 is reproduced below:2
1. A conductive pigment, comprising a substrate coated with
a conductive layer containing tin oxide doped with phosphorus.
As evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies on the
following prior art:
Stahlecker et al.(Stahlecker) 5,320,781 Jun. 14, 1994
Bruckner et al.(Bruckner) 5,472,640 Dec. 5, 1995
Okuda et al.(Okuda) 0 582 371 A1 Sep. 2, 1994
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007