Appeal No. 2002-1191
Application No. 09/101,175
subject matter of claim 44. Consequently, the subject matter of claim 44 is not
distinguishable from the electrochemical sensor of Makino.
In any event, the combination of Makino and Furutani also renders the subject matter
of claim 44 unpatentable. The Examiner has concluded that it would have been obvious to
include in the Makino invention a additional protective layer over the porous cover that also
covers the gas inlet. The Examiner relies on the teachings of Furutani in rendering his
conclusion. (Answer, p. 4).
The Appellants argue that the teachings of Makino and Furutani, either individually
or in combination, do not teach or suggest completely covering a gas inlet opening with a
cover layer and a separate porous cover over the gas inlet so that the porous cover
completely covers the gas inlet opening. (Brief, p. 7, ll. 8-13; p. 8, ll. 2-5 and 20-23; Reply
Brief, pp. 5-8 ).
We agree with the Examiner. The additional cover layer would enhance the diffusion
and protective function of the cover structure compared to a single covering layer. It is not
disputed that Makino discloses the use of a single cover layer protection and Furutani
discloses the use of multi-layer cover protection for a gas sensor. This prior art would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that a gas sensor could be protected by use of
cover layers individually or in combination. Moreover, it has long been held obvious to
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007