Appeal No. 95-3422
Application 07/891,132
using a high temperature resistant electrical insulator 31
made of silicon nitride. While we find from Richerson’s
teaching that silicon nitride is indeed a high temperature
resistant electrical insulator for silicon carbide-silicon
nitride heating elements, the examiner has not explained why
Richerson’s use of silicon nitride hot-pressed to a silicon
carbide-silicon nitride heating element would have suggested
hot-pressed silicon nitride for use in electrically insulating
graphite reactor walls from graphite heating elements. The
reasons for the combination escape us.
Accordingly, we also reverse the examiner’s rejection of
Claims 10 and 11 under section 103. In so doing, we repeat
the wisdom of In re Fine, 837 F.2d at 1074, 5 USPQ2d at 1598:
The PTO has the burden under section 103 to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness . . . [and] can satisfy
this burden only by showing some objective teaching in
the prior art or that knowledge generally available to
one of ordinary skill in the art would lead that
individual
to combine the relevant teachings of the references.
Conclusion
We reverse all the examiner’s rejections of Claims 1-21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
REVERSED
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007