Appeal No. 1996-0841
Application No. 07/928,443
The examiner’s reliance on Clifford does not remedy the
deficiencies of Firth. Clifford describes various gas sensors
which employ a combination of catalytic metal oxide materials.
See column 7, line 65 to column 8, line 53. Clifford
indicates that particular catalytic metal oxides known as
“activators” can be included in particular catalytic metal
oxide films to improve their detection of particular gases.
See column 8, lines 11-64. Nowhere does Clifford indicate
that those “activators” can be used together with a
catalytically inactive beta-gallium oxide film to enhance the
detection of any particular gas. See Clifford in its
entirety.
Given these circumstances, we cannot agree with the
examiner that the combined disclosures of Clifford and Firth
would have rendered the claimed subject matter prima facie
obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we reverse the
examiner’s decision rejecting all of the appealed claims under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
REVERSED
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007