Appeal No. 95-0543
Application 08/008,734
crystalline carbon is either monocrystalline or polycrystalline,
the examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to the
artisan in 1992 to select at least one polycrystalline carbon as
a substitute for the carbon of Potter is persuasive. We note
that appellants have offered no rebuttal arguments as to the
alleged errors in the examiner’s analysis. Appellants only argue
that the carbon in Potter is not polycrystalline. This argument,
however, does not rebut the examiner’s persuasive reasoning as to
why polycrystalline carbon would have been suggested to the
artisan in 1992. Therefore, on the record before us, we agree
with the examiner that the invention of claims 9 and 10 would
have been obvious to the artisan in view of the teachings of
Potter and the state of knowledge in the art at the time this
application was filed. The rejection of claims 9 and 10 is
sustained.
We now consider the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b)/103 alternatively as being anticipated by the disclosure
of Potter or as being unpatentable over the teachings of Potter.
The examiner notes that Potter shows the features of claim 3 in
the same manner as noted for claim 1 except that Potter fails to
explicitly show the claimed “sinterable connections” [answer,
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007