Appeal No. 96-1087
Application 08/068,700
specific ranges set forth in the language of claim 2. (See Brief at page 13-14). We agree
with appellants. As discussed above with respect to claim 1, Takamura and Kagawa do
not teach the limitation of the claimed invention pertaining to the length "L" of the narrowed
portion of the electrode, and the Examiner has not provided any evidence to meet the
language of the claimed invention. Upon evaluation of all the evidence before us, it is our
conclusion that the evidence adduced by the Examiner is not sufficient to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness with respect to claim 2. Accordingly, we will not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1 and 2 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed. The decision of the Examiner is reversed.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007