Ex parte SHANFIELD et al. - Page 3

          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.                        
                    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             
                    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                     


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007