Appeal No. 2003-1477
Application No. 09/248,533
mounting a plurality of contact-bound-mode module
contact zones on the first side of the carrier layer;
depositing a plurality of contactless-mode module
contact zones on the second side of the carrier layer
by means of a printing method; and
electrically coupling the contact-bound-mode
terminals of the chip to the contact-bound-mode module
contact zones and electrically coupling the
contactless-mode terminals of the chip to the
contactless-mode module contact zones.
The references set forth below are relied upon by the
examiner in the § 102 and § 103 rejections before us in this
appeal:
Prancz (Prancz ‘424) 6,095,424 Aug. 01, 2000
Prancz et al. (Prancz ‘570) WO 97/05570 Feb. 13, 1997
Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art (Specification page 1, lines 1-28)
Claims 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point
out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the appellants
regard as their invention.
Claims 1-8, “as understood”2 (answer, page 3), are rejected
2 In making his above-noted prior art rejections, notwithstanding the
presence of his § 112, second paragraph, rejection, the examiner has failed to
proffer claim interpretations upon which these prior art rejections are based
pursuant to the guidelines set forth in the Manual of Patent Examining
Procedure (MPEP) section 2173.06 (8th ed. Rev. 1, Feb. 2003). Instead, the
examiner has improperly categorized the prior-art rejected claims with the
unembellished and uninformative phrase “as understood”. This impropriety on
(continued...)
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007