Appeal No. 2005-0430
Application No. 09/817,241
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Tamura.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Tamura and Hirasawa.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Tamura and Biornard.
Rather than reiterate the opposing arguments, reference is
made to the brief and answer for the respective positions of
Appellants and the Examiner.
OPINION
Initially, we note Appellants’ indication of the grouping of
claims 2-6 as standing or falling together (brief, page 5).
However, we will consider the claims in separate groups according
to their ground of rejection and as argued by Appellants in the
argument section of the brief.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claims 5
and 6, Appellants acknowledge various teachings in Tamura as
proposed by the Examiner (brief, page 9) and argue that layer 11
of the conductive tape is a non-conductive layer and cannot be
characterized as the claimed conductive base (brief, page 10).
Appellants further point to column 6, lines 37-39 of Tamura and
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007