Appeal No. 96-1837
Application No. 08/083,372
expansion coefficient as the adjacent members, the claims call
for the buffer member to have a thermal expansion coefficient
which is “substantially an intermediate value between thermal
expansion coefficients of the two members located on two sides of
the buffer member.” Neither applied reference teaches or
suggests the claimed “intermediate value” since the examiner
admits that Matsudaira lacks this teaching and it is clear that a
thermal expansion coefficient that is “similar,” as taught by
Rajac, is not a thermal expansion coefficient which is
“intermediate,” as required.
We now turn to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C.
103 over Ishikawa in view of Kobashi.
While we are of the view that the examiner makes a stronger
case for obviousness with these references, upon careful
consideration of the applied references and the arguments of both
appellants and the examiner, we find ourselves in agreement with
the appellant.
Kobashi clearly teaches the idea of using a buffer which has
a thermal expansion coefficient which is intermediate the thermal
expansion coefficients of two members located on the two sides of
the buffer and, thus, it appears tempting to want to apply this
teaching to Ishikawa which teaches a spacer between a hub and a
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007