Appeal No. 2003-1310
Application No. 09/761,738
Claims 21-24 stand rejected under the second paragraph of
35 U.S.C. § 112 as being indefinite.
Claims 21-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Krolikowsky.
Rather than reiterate the viewpoints of the Examiner and
Appellant regarding the rejections, we make reference to the
answer (Paper No. 11, mailed August 30, 2002) for the Examiner’s
reasoning and to the appeal brief (Paper No. 10, filed July 22,
2002) and the reply brief (Paper No. 13, filed October 24, 2002)
for Appellant’s arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
With respect to the rejection of the claims under the second
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, the Examiner questions the clarity
and the meaning of the term “intellectual property” as “circuit
components” (answer, page 3). Appellant argues that the use of
the term “intellectual property” as predefined circuits that can
be formed on a semiconductor wafer as a component of a larger
operational circuit are known in the industry (brief, page 4).
Appellant further provides copies of web-page printouts to
support the use of the term “intellectual property” in this
context as used in semiconductor manufacturing art (brief,
Appendix II).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007