Appeal No. 1997-2164
Application No. 08/277,468
vessel and exterior ambient conditions. See column 3, lines
57 through 60. We do not find that the quotation from
Oeschger, on column 3, lines 19 to 21, that "[t]he entire
device according to the invention relies upon techniques and
processes well known in the vacuum capacitor and interrupter
arts," which the Examiner cites on
page 3 of the answer, provides the suggestion to use the
device of Oeschger on a vacuum package enclosure. Oeschger
teaches that the vessel may contain vapor which is corrosive
or radioactive under pressure. See column 2, lines 54 through
59. Thus, Oeschger's vessel is not evacuated or a vacuum.
Accordingly, we find that the Examiner has not set forth
a prima face case as neither Oeschger nor Mizuhara teaches or
suggests a ceramic feedthrough brazed to a vacuum package
enclosure. Thus, we will not sustain the rejection of claims
1 through 4, 9, 11, 12 through 16, 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuhara and Oeschger.
Next, we turn to the rejection of claims 1, 3, 6, 7 and
13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Guillotin
and Oeschger. On page 3 of the answer, the Examiner asserts
that Guillotin teaches a ceramic feedthrough plate where there
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007