Appeal No. 1996-3052
Application 08/064,639
inclined and continuous walls between said
two portions.
Appellants argue that the Examiner has failed to show that the
admitted prior art of figures 16A and 16B suggests or teaches
the
one piece electrode plate having inclined and continuous walls
between said two portions. Appellants argue that the Examiner
cannot ignore these limitations. On pages 3 through 8 of the
reply brief, Appellants show that the one piece electrode
structure provides a greater advantage over the prior art and
that the step having continuous and inclined walls provides
advantages over the prior art as well.
The Federal Circuit states that "[t]he mere fact
that the prior art may be modified in the manner suggested by
the Examiner does not make the modification obvious unless the
prior art suggested the desirability of the modification." In
re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 n.14, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84
n.14 (Fed. Cir. 1992), citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902,
221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007