Appeal No. 2003-2157
Application No. 09/885,311
C. Other Issues
As discussed above, the examiner has objected to the
specification under section 132 as containing new matter. However,
in the event of further or continuing prosecution of this
application and continued objection to the specification as
containing new matter, the examiner should consider the
patentability of the claimed subject matter under the first
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, since the claims as construed do not
find written description in the originally filed specification.
See In re Rasmussen, supra, and MPEP § 2163.06, I, 8th ed., Feb.
2003.
D. Summary
The rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 10, 12 and 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) over Crystal is affirmed. The rejection of claims 1, 3-8,
10, 12-18, 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Crystal in view
of Katada and Sato is affirmed. The rejection of claims 11 and 19
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Crystal in view of Katada, Sato and
Mahabadi is affirmed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007