Appeal 2007-4313
Application 10/286,172
rejections. Consequently, we select claim 1 as representative of the claims
on appeal. The remaining claims stand or fall with claim 1. (37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(vii).) Claim 1, which we reproduce from the claim appendix of
the Appeal Brief (Br.) defines the invention as follows:
An apparatus for plating a plurality of small-sized
plating-pieces comprising:
a plating bath in which a plating solution is provided;
a cathode and an anode made of conductors, which are
dipped into the plating solution, respectively, the cathode
having a substantially flat upper surface which is to contact
with the small-sized plating-pieces and at least one recess
formed on the upper surface; and
a container which contains a plurality of the small-sized
plating-pieces in the plating solution, and the cathode is
arranged so as to define a portion of the bottom of the
container;
wherein a plurality of the small-sized plating-pieces are
caused to contact with the cathode in the plating solution, and
conduction is carried out between the cathode and the anode, so
that plating films are deposited onto the small-sized plating-
pieces.
We are obliged to give a claim the broadest construction that is
reasonable in view of the specification. We understand "wherein" clause at
the end of the claim to reinforce the purpose of the apparatus stated in the
preamble, but not to otherwise further limit the structures of the apparatus.
THE REJECTIONS
Indefiniteness
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(2) for indefiniteness.
Murata presented no arguments for this rejection. Consequently, the
rejection of claim 10 is AFFIRMED.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013