Ex parte INOUE - Page 3

          Appeal No. 1997-3857                                                        
          Application No. 08/220,286                                                  

               We have carefully considered the claims, the applied                   
          prior art reference, and the respective positions articulated               
          by appellant and the examiner.  As a consequence of our                     
          review, we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1               
          through 8.                                                                  
               The examiner admits (Answer, pages 3-4) that Shikama has               
          no portion free from the insulative coating other than where                
          the electrodes are located.  The examiner therefore asserts                 
          (Answer, page 4) that "to cover or not cover additional                     
          surfaces with the insulating material is a modification which               
          only requires routine skill in the art," and that "it would                 
          have been obvious ... to provide the coating of Shikama et al.              
          on all portions of the body except for the outer peripheral                 
          edge for the purpose of lowering the manufacturing cost of the              
          device."  Further, the examiner states (Answer, page 5) that                
          the proposed modification is not contrary to the express                    
          teachings of the reference because "one of ordinary skill in                
          the art would realize that in order to reduce cost, a                       
          compromise to one advantage may be necessary in order to                    
          achieve a desired result while other advantages are                         

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007