Appeal No. 1998-2471 Page 16
Application No. 08/222,913
Claim 17 specifies in pertinent part a “cylindrical member
[that] has a tip end with an outer wall having a tapered cross
sectional configuration.”
The appellants err in considering the references in less
than their entirety. A reference must be considered as a
whole for what it reveals “to workers in the art.” Panduit
Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1566, 1 USPQ2d
1593, 1595 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Here, Murai teaches an electrode
42. Col. 3, l. 12. Figure 2 shows that the tip end 42a of
the electrode has a tapered cross sectional configuration.
The reference’s tapered configuration would have suggested the
tapered cross sectional configuration as claimed. Claim 16 is
not argued separately and falls with claim 17.
For the foregoing reasons, the examiner has established a
prima facie case of obviousness. Therefore, we affirm the
rejection of claims 16 and 17. Next, we address the
obviousness of claim 18.
Claim 18
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007