Appeal No. 2002-0531 Page 3
Application No. 09/108,687
Patent No. 5,507,655 ("Goerlich"); U.S. Patent No. 5,842,887 ("Andrews"); and U.S.
Patent No. 5,890,917 ("Ishida"). Claim 5 also stands rejected under § 103(a) as
obvious over Goerlich, Andrews, Ishida, and U.S. Patent No. Re. 36065 ("Andrews
Reexam").
OPINION
When claims have been rejected under the first and second paragraphs of 35
U.S.C. § 112, analysis "should begin with the determination of whether the claims
satisfy the requirements of the second paragraph." In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235,
169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971). Accordingly, our opinion addresses the rejections in
the following order:
• indefiniteness rejection
• written description rejection
• obviousness rejections.
A. INDEFINITENESS REJECTION
Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or the appellants in toto, we address
the following points of contention therebetween:
- hooked position
- front portion, connection sections, and entrance opening
- first dielectric
- impedance
- second air chamber
- front wall.
1. Hooked Position
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007