Appeal No. 96-3106
Application 08/052,015
phrase "a cover" in these claims to mean "a single cover". We
find no such feature in the applied art. Thus, we reverse the
rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Sutrina
and Granberg.
4,5. Rejection of claims 18 and 19 over Sutrina
and Granberg
Appellants argue that, in addition to the limitations of
claim 1, claim 18 defines the planar configuration of the
support member, and the first and the second electrodes being
electrically isolated from each other and supported by the
central electrode structure. Appellants further argue that
these features are not shown in the suggested combination of
Sutrina and Granberg [Brief, pages 12 to 13].
First, note that our remarks regarding the obviousness
rejection of claim 1 above equally apply here. In addition,
we find that Sutrina, in figure 2, shows a plurality of
semiconductor devices 46 disposed on support member 10 in a
planar array (i.e., in the plane of the paper) extending
radially outward from the central electrode 76. First
electrodes 48 are connected to support member 10 via plates
-13-
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007