Appeal No. 1998-0380
Application No. 08/518,062
Contrary to the argument related to claim 5 (main brief, pages
7 and 8), the broadly recited "at least two parts" is
responded to by at least two integral parts of the electrode
31 of Hughes (Fig. 3).
Turning now to claim 2, it is apparent that the examiner
relies upon the drawing alone to support the rejection of this
claim as being anticipated by the Hughes teaching. Not being
to scale, it is speculative at best as to what Fig. 3 fairly
teaches in the matter of distances between electrodes. Thus,
the rejection of claim 2, as well as of claims 5/2 and 6/2
dependent thereon, must be reversed.
The obviousness rejections
Claims 1, 2, 5, and 6
We sustain the rejection of claims 1, 5, and 6 under
35 U.S.C. § 103, but reverse the rejection of claim 2 on this
same ground.
As explained above, in the rejection of claims 1 and 5/1
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), the claimed subject matter is
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007