Appeal No. 1998-2119
Application No. 08/343,965
French ‘210 and Japanese ‘845 to meet the limitations of
appellant’s claims on appeal. Even if French ‘210 and
Japanese ‘845 are considered to be analogous prior art, the
combined teachings of the applied references, in our opinion,
would not have suggested calendering the stack to at least
partially crush the expanded metal and then heating the
calendered stack to sinter the PTFE and thereby form the foil-
type material. Therefore, the examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1 will not be sustained. Since claims 2-9
depend from 1 and thus include all of the limitations thereof,
we will also not sustain examiner’s rejection of these claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Independent claim 13 includes all of the limitations of
independent claim 1 as well as requiring a calendering
pressure "greater than 200 kg/cm ". Since we have determined2
that a prima facie case of obviousness was not set forth by
the examiner with regard to broader independent claim 1, it
follows that the rejection of independent claim 13 on the same
basis (i.e., French ‘210 in view of Japanese ‘845) will also
not be sustained. Since claims 14, 15 and 17 depend from 13
13
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007