Appeal No. 2001-2407
Application No. 09/154,703
claims included in an elected species are petitionable, rather
than appealable, matters. But, as far as definiteness of the
claim language and an enabling disclosure for the claim language,
“integrated structure,” in claim 17, we find no problem either
under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, or under 35 U.S.C. 112,
first paragraph.
The examiner’s rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. 112,
first and second paragraphs, is not sustained.
We turn now to the rejection of claims 10-13 and 18 under
35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as relying on a nonenabling
disclosure.
The examiner’s position is that there is no adequate
disclosure of using a separate “positioning member” in the
species of Figure 3, the only “positioning member” being for the
species of Figure 10A, with a flat back surface.
With regard to claim 11, the examiner contends that there is
no adequate disclosure of how a conductive adhesive is configured
or applied to enable the skilled artisan to make and use this
embodiment.
With regard to claims 12 and 18, the examiner contends there
is no adequate disclosure of structural details for the listed
alternative actuators.
-5–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007