Appeal No. 95-0926
Application 08/026,222
The examiner relies on the following references:
Liles 4,688,062 Aug. 18, 1987
Kirchner et al. (Kirchner) 4,843,450 Jun. 27, 1989
Claims 9, 10 and 12 through 18 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Liles in view of Kirchner.
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the
respective positions of appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
At the outset, we note that while appellants state, at
page 11 of the brief, that all claims stand or fall together,
appellants separately argue [at pages 14-15 of the brief] the
limitations of dependent claims 16, 17 and 18, apart from the
other claims.
Regarding appellants' argument, at pages 12-13 of the
brief, that the instant invention will maintain a reverse
breakdown voltage, this argument is not persuasive since the
maintenance of a reverse breakdown voltage forms no part of the
claims.
Further, appellants' argument that Kirchner teaches
away from the instant claimed invention, because Kirchner is
interested in an anion free oxide on the surface of the
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007