Appeal 2007-2095
Application 10/378,493
Strauch US 2003/0177977 A1 Sep. 25, 2003
Sillmon (‘289) US 6,716,289 B1 Apr. 06, 2004
ISSUES ON APPEAL
Claims 1 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Strauch in view of Sillmon ‘855 and Löfgren (Answer 3).
Claims 2-3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Strauch in view of Sillmon ‘855, Löfgren, and Hayashi (Answer 5).2
Claims 1-3 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Frijlink in view of Sillmon ‘289, Hayashi, and Löfgren
(Answer 5-6).
Appellants contend that neither Sillmon nor Löfgren disclose a cover
plate which consists of graphite as required by claims 1 and 12 on appeal
(Br. 6). Appellant further contends that Löfgren discloses walls made of
graphite but does not teach a cover plate (Br. 7).
Appellants contend that Strauch “teaches away” from the claimed
subject matter by teaching the importance of forming the gas-discharge ring
from quartz (Br. 7-8), and does not teach any “generically described”
elements (Br. 9).
Appellants contend that none of Frijlink, Sillmon, Hayashi, and
Löfgren teach a cover plate of graphite (Br. 11).
2 Appellants do not contest this rejection (Br. 4-5). Therefore, we consider
this rejection as standing or falling with the rejection of claims 1 and 12
under § 103(a) over Strauch in view of Sillmon ‘855 and Löfgren.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013