Appeal No. 2002-0579 Page 3
Application No. 09/324,780
(5) Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Oppermann in view of Johnson.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 17) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections and to
the brief and reply brief (Paper Nos. 16 and 18) for the appellant’s arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The written description rejection
The basis of the examiner’s rejection of claim 24 under the first paragraph of 35
U.S.C. § 112 is that the application as originally filed does not provide written
descriptive support for the limitation “non-conductive filling material” in claim 24, which
was first presented in the amendment filed November 21, 2000 (Paper No. 10). The
examiner is correct, and appellant does not dispute, that the application as originally
filed contains no explicit reference to a “non-conductive” filling material as is now recited
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007