Appeal No. 2005-1098
Application No. 10/319,149
Kao et al. (Kao) 6,249,044 B1 Jun. 19, 2001
Rhodes 6,611,013 B2 Aug. 26, 2003
(filed Feb. 7, 2001)
Claims 1-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as indefinite (Answer, page 3). Claims 1, 2, 8 and 9
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kao
in view of Pernyeszi (id.). Claims 10 and 11 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kao in view of
Pernyeszi and Rhodes (Answer, page 4).
We reverse all of the examiner’s rejections on appeal
essentially for the reasons stated in the Brief and those reasons
set forth below.
OPINION
A. The Rejection under § 112, ¶2
The examiner finds that the PMD layer recited in claim 1 on
appeal is described in the specification but “it is not
understood what a PMD layer is and the specification does not
explain what it is or what its characteristics are” (Answer, page
3).
Appellants argue that the PMD layer is discussed in the
specification at page 4, ll. 23-24, and is also shown as element
16 in Figure 3 (Brief, page 6). Thus appellants submit that
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007