Appeal No. 1997-3857
Application No. 08/220,286
In addition, "a proposed modification [is] inappropriate
for an obviousness inquiry when the modification render[s] the
prior art reference inoperable for its intended purpose. In
re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir.
1984)." In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1265-1266 n.12, 23
USPQ2d 1780, 1783 n.12 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Shikama states
(column 2, lines 9-19) that the objects of the invention
include providing a thermistor which is protected from both
external force which cause cracks and chips of the substrates
(column 1, lines 41-46) and also gases which penetrate into
the substrate (column 1, lines 50-54) and which has little
heat leakage. Shikama repeatedly emphasizes that coating the
entire thermistor with glass, except where the electrodes are
located, in addition to preventing migration of silver ions,
prevents heat leakage from the thermistor, gas introduction
into the thermistor, cracking or chipping of the substrate, or
peeling off of the underelectrode. Thus, eliminating a
portion of the glass coating does not merely substitute one
benefit for another, as suggested by the examiner, but rather
is completely contrary to the express purpose of the
reference, as argued by appellant (Brief, page 3). Therefore,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007