Appeal No. 97-3030
Application No. 08/254,181
With regard to claims 12 and 13, appellants argue (reply
brief-page 5) that the claimed resistance strips and
conductive strip as fired thick film material run "counter to
the teachings of Pons Pons." Again, appellants argue the
references individually when the rejection is based on a
combination of references. The examiner relies on Hedden for
the limitations of claims 12 and 13. Thus, appellants’
arguments in this regard are not persuasive.
We will sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 11 through
13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Pons Pons and
Hedden.
We will not sustain the rejection of claim 14 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Pons Pons and Hedden because
the claim specifically calls for the porcelain enamel metal
substrate to include "two or more of said resistance paths."
We find no such suggestion in Hedden, which is relied on for
the porcelain enamel metal substrate, and the examiner has not
explained how this claim limitation is reached by the
teachings of the applied references.
With regard to the rejection of claims 5, 7 and 8 under
35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Pons Pons, Hedden and Hawkins, we
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007