Appeal No. 97-1625
Application No. 08/415,900
the examiner replies that “Hegner et al. teach protecting all
areas of the sensor to be exposed” (Answer, page 11).
We cannot agree with the examiner. Adams discloses a sensor
(22) mounted in a cavity adjacent to the upper surface thereof,
with a protective coating (22) on its top surface (Figure 3).
There is no teaching, explicit or implied, that any portion of
the surfaces of the cavity be coated with protective material.
In the Hegner arrangement, a protective coating is provided on
the side of a pressure sensing diaphragm (11) that faces the
applied pressure. No cavity is shown, and we can perceive from
this reference no teaching, explicit or implied, which would
support a conclusion that the walls of a cavity in which the
sensor is to be installed should be coated with protective
material. While cavities are present in the relevant Knecht
sensor (Figure 19), the only use of coating material is on the
outside of the diaphragm, and not in the cavity.
We therefore find no support for the examiner’s opinion that
the combined teachings of the three references would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that the sidewalls
and the upper surface of the cavity in which the sensor is
mounted be coated with an inorganic material. This being the
case, a prima facie case of obviousness has not been established
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007