Appeal No. 2001-0684
Application No. 09/205,668
Claims 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
which appellants regard as the invention. Claims 1-5, 7-10, 12, 13, and 23-27 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wollesen in view of
Chittipeddi.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 14, mailed Oct. 24, 2000) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to appellants’ brief (Paper No.13, filed Oct. 4, 2000) and reply brief
(Paper No. 15, filed Dec. 28, 2000) for appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
35 U.S.C. § 112, SECOND PARAGRAPH
With respect to claim 6, the examiner maintains that it is unclear how claim 1
shows the peripheral region as being connected to the pad and claim 6 states that the
peripheral region is floating. Appellants argue that the language of claim 6 is clear in
view of the disclosed invention wherein there may be a connection/contact and still be
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007