Appeal No. 2000-0366
Application No. 08/477,957
Regarding the argument (request at page 4) relating to the
recited “an electrically conductive buffer layer” or “a thin-film
conductive donor doped perovskite layer less than 5 µm thick,”
we note that both of these limitations are indeed in claim 23, and
we agree with Appellants that they are not shown by the applied
prior art.
Thus, we have carefully considered the arguments raised by
Appellants in their request for rehearing, and we find an error in
our original decision. We withdraw our § 196(b) rejection based on
Kaiser in view of Miyasaka and McSweeney, which was set forth in
our decision, and our decision is modified to be solely a reversal
of the rejection of claims 23-42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007