Appeal No. 2004-2226
Application NO. 10/066,421
and the exhibit appended thereto), but insist that as used in the
instant specification and claims 4, 10 and 19, “electro-less”
should be construed literally as meaning “insulating” (see page 4
in the main brief). The appellants, however, have not advanced
any authority supporting this latter meaning. Given the lack of
any guidance in the specification as to the meaning of the term
“electro-less,” the apparent lack of any authority for the argued
meaning and the conflicting conventional definition, the use of
this term in claims 4, 10 and 19 renders these claims indefinite.
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner:
a) to reject claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, is affirmed;
b) to reject claims 1, 2 and 4 through 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, is reversed; and
c) to reject claims 1, 2 and 4 through 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a) as being anticipated by Schmidt is reversed.
In addition, a new rejection of claims 4, 10 and 19 is
entered pursuant to 37 CFR § 41.50(b).
Regarding the affirmed rejection(s), 37 CFR § 41.52(a)(1)
provides "[a]ppellant may file a single request for rehearing
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007