Appeal No. 2001-1966
Application 09/140,846
OPINION
We reverse both stated rejections of the claims on appeal
because we have concluded the examiner has not established a
prima facie case of obviousness. On the other hand, we institute
new grounds of rejection of the claims on appeal under the second
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
In the context of the entire disclosed invention, we make
note initially of Figure 1. The particles 15 shown in this
figure may contain fluid. As such, they each may be considered a
capsule. The depicted capsule 13 contains a plurality of
particles/first capsules 15 in a suspending fluid 17. All of
this is placed within binder 11 between electrodes 16-16'. Taken
in this light, the subject matter of independent claims 1 and 30
on appeal, the only claims argued by appellant in the starting
point of the examiner's rejections, is made clear. The nature
and placement of the binder recited in claim 30 is thus apparent
when considered in the context of Figure 1 of the disclosed
invention. There is no binder recited in claim 1, but the binder
is additionally recited in dependent claim 2, which is not
argued. The binder is, on the other hand, recited at the end of
claim 30 on appeal. This claim recites that each of the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007