Appeal No. 96-2520
Application 07/891,852
of Sotome '124, we find that Sotome '124 in Figure 5 and
column 2,
lines 39-50, teaches the limitations as recited in Appellant's
claim 5, and thereby we will sustain the Examiner's rejection
of claim 5.
In regard to the rejection of claim 12 under
35 U.S.C. § 102, Appellant argues on page 8 of the brief that
Sotome '124 fails to teach that a "single piece diaphragm is a
single sheet of said high heat conductivity metal" as recited
in claim 12. Upon our review of Sotome '124, we fail to find
that Sotome '124 teaches that the diaphragm is formed from a
single sheet of metal. Therefore, we will not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 12.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Sotome '124 and Sotome '307. It is
the burden of the Examiner to establish why one having
ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the claimed
invention by the reasonable teachings or suggestions found in
the prior art, or by a reasonable inference to the artisan
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007