Appeal No. 96-0661
Application 08/189,833
2000ēC" (emphasis added), not that the heating element must
exhibit an operating temperature which encompasses the entire
range set forth in the claims. Moreover, we note that such an
understanding is belied by appellant’s own specification (page
4) which indicates that
"[b]y adjusting a mixture ratio of the carbon powder and
the alumina powder, it is possible to adjust the
generated temperature within a range from about
30ēC to about 2000ēC,"
and that the temperature of the heating element is changed in
accordance with the mixture ratio (page 4, lines 16-18).
On the basis of the foregoing, we will sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. On
page 4 of the brief appellant has grouped claims 1 and 5
together for purposes of this appeal, and thus we conclude
that claim 5 will fall with claim 1.
On page 7 of the brief, appellant has argued that none of
the applied references appear to disclose or suggest a
honeycomb structure prepared by sinter forging as set forth in
dependent claims 21 and 22 on appeal. However, we note that
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007