Appeal No. 2005-2709 Page 5
Application No. 10/113,648
language employed in a claim must be analyzed not in a vacuum, but in light of the
teachings of the particular application. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ
236, 238 (CCPA 1971). After consideration of the present record, we determine that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the disputed claim
language covers devices in which each of the electrodes is a transparent electrode
comprising a glass substrate coated with a transparent anode material. As such, the
Examiner’s rejection on this basis is reversed.
§112 First Paragraph Rejection
Claims 13-25 stand rejected under 35 USC § 112 first paragraph, as lacking an
adequate written description in the specification. (Answer, p. 5).
Appellants have not specifically challenged the Examiner’s rejection. Rather
Appellants state “[i]t is believed that this rejection can be overcome by deleting ‘an
electrically conductive’ from lines 2 and 3 of claim 13 and inserting thereat -a.-” (Brief,
p. 5). Appellants’ offer to amend the claimed subject matter suggest that they are in
agreement with the Examiner’s rejection. Since Appellants have acquiesced to the
stated rejection and the proposed amendment has not been entered in the present
record we will uphold the stated rejection.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007