Appeal No. 2001-2557
Application No. 08/888,996
However, we do not find that the examiner, prima facie, has
established that one of ordinary skill in the art would not
understand the practical uses of the claimed solid electrolyte
composite when taking into consideration appellant’s supporting
specification and state of the prior art. It is well settled
that claim language must not be read in a vacuum. In re Sneed,
710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejections of the
appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Bothwell in view of
Isenberg, or Weiman in view of Bothwell and Isenberg for
essentially those reasons presented by appellant in the brief.
According to the examiner, “[i]t would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to select and use the stabilized
zirconia deposit embodiment of Bothwell as an electrolyte because
of the teachings of Isenberg et al. that stabilized zirconia
functions as an electrolyte” (page 5 of answer, first paragraph),
and that “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art to use the zirconia and grid of Bothwell in the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007