Appeal No. 2005-0181
Application No. 09/781,631
e.g., in appellants’ claim 31, which provide for the encapsulant
composition.
In view of the above, we reverse the 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, enablement rejection of claims 41, 43, and 48, pro
forma. However, we affirm the 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
enablement rejection of claims 42, 44-47, and 49-51.
IV. The objection of claims 37, 54, 57, 58, 67, and 68 under 37
CFR 1.75(c) as being of improper dependent form for failing
to further limit the subject matter of a previous claim
Because this issue involves an objection to certain claims
under 37 CFR §1.75(c), this issue is a petitionable matter, and
not an appealable matter. As such, we do not consider this issue
in this appeal. See MPEP §§ 706.01 and 1201 (8th ed., Rev. 2,
May 2004).
V. The 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claims 31-33, 35, 37,
38, 42, 45 and 46 as being anticipated by Tang
We consider claims 31 and 32 in this rejection.
The examiner’s position for this rejection is set forth on
pages 6-7 of the answer. The examiner’s position is that Tang
discloses the same epoxy resin composition as claimed by
appellant. The examiner concludes therefore that the coefficient
of thermal expansion as recited in appellant’s claim 32 is met by
Tang because the composition of Tang is the same as that claimed
by appellant in claim 31.
Claim 31 requires a composition comprising a “core-shell”
substance including a fine powder, whose particles each have an
outer shell with a glass transition temperature above room
temperature and a core with a glass transition temperature below
room temperature. Appellant’s core material can be acrylates and
silicone or butadiene-based rubbers. Appellant’s shell can
-9-
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007