Appeal No. 2003-0688
Application No. 09/324,889
U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Ohsawa in view of Kitayama.
Claims 32 and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being obvious over Ohsawa in view of Kitayama and further in view
of Wada.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed appellants' brief and reply brief
and the examiner's answer. This review has led us to conclude
that none of the examiner’s rejections are well-founded.
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph rejection
(indefiniteness)
On page 2 of the answer, the examiner asserts that claims
24, 31, and 39 are indefinite because it is not understood what
purpose is served by making the blade body and contacts
electrically conductive, and because it is not understood what
keeps the substrate on the contacts in absence of containment
means, and because no motive means for the blade has been set
forth to permit the substrate to be acquired and to be released
from the contacts. The examiner also asserts that the term
"semi-conductive" appears to be a relative and indefinite term.
With regard to the word “chamber” found in claims 31 and 46, the
examiner asserts that no chamber structure is recited and
therefore this renders the claim incomplete.
The examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima
facie case of unpatentability, whether the rejection is based on
prior art or any other ground. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443,
1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The requirement
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is only that the claims
set out and circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable
degree of precision and particularity. In re Moore, 439 F.2d
1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971). The definiteness of
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007