Appeal No. 1997-2164
Application No. 08/277,468
that the enclosure is a vacuum package enclosure.
Accordingly, we find that the Examiner has not set forth
a prima face case as neither Guillotin nor Oeschger teaches or
suggests a ceramic feedthrough brazed to a vacuum package
enclosure. Thus, we will not sustain the rejection of claims
1, 3, 6, 7 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Guillotin and Oeschger.
Similarly, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 6
through 8 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Mizuhara, Oeschger and Guillotin.
Finally, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 5
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuhara,
Oeschger and Bowsky. Claim 5 is dependent upon claim 1. We
do not find that Bowsky teaches ceramic feedthrough brazed to
a vacuum package enclosure. Accordingly we will not sustain
the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In view of the foregoing we reverse the rejections of
claims 1 through 9 and 11 through 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
REVERSED
15
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007