Appeal No. 1997-2164
Application No. 08/277,468
Appellants assert on page 5 of the appeal brief (brief)
that the combination of Mizuhara and Oeschger do not teach all
of the limitations of the claims. Specifically, Appellants
assert that "Mizuhara does not disclose a vacuum package
structure or brazing a feedthrough plate to such a structure."
Appellants also assert that Oeschger's ceramic feedthrough is
not on a vacuum package enclosure. Appellants assert on page
5 of the brief that Oeschger's device involves brazing the
ceramic to an intermediate body, item 17, which is welded to
the vessel. Appellants point out that the intermediate body,
item 17, of Oeschger's device is not joined to the wall
simultaneously with preparation of the brazed joints.
Appellants assert that "to braze the feedthrough pins to a
ceramic block, to braze the ceramic block to an intermediate
body, and to weld the intermediate body to the wall . . .
certainly is not what the present claims recite." Further,
Appellants argue on page 4 of the reply brief that the
reliance on art of record, which is not applied in the
rejection, is improper and does not constitute a clear
rejection.
We find that the combination of Oeschger and Mizuhara
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007