Appeal No. 2003-0016 Page 7
Application No. 09/400,613
However, these limitations are not suggested by the applied prior art. In our view, the
examiner's position (answer, p. 7) that the above-noted annular limitations are met by
the plurality of metallic connector spots 13 and electrically conducting adhesive layers
13' which in the examiner's opinion form an annular member as shown in Figure 2 of
Gademann is clearly in error for the reasons set forth by the appellants in their briefs.
Since the annular limitations of the claims under appeal are not taught by
Gademann, the examiner's rejections have not set forth evidence that would have
made it been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in
the art to arrive at the claimed subject matter.1 Accordingly, the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 16 to 18, 20, 21 and 27 to 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
reversed.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 16 to 18, 20, 21 and
27 to 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed and the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 27 to 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is affirmed.
1 We have reviewed the reference to Thompson but find nothing therein which makes up for the
deficiencies of Gademann discussed above.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007