Appeal No. 1997-1003
Application No. 08/188,145
Iten 4,857,887 Aug.
15, 1989
Claims 1 through 5, 7 through 9, 11 through 18, 32
through 34, and 36 through 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko, Larson, or Fujii.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Sonderegger in view of Iten.
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 21,
mailed May 28, 1996) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to appellants' Brief (Paper
Nos. 20 and 32, filed March 6, 1996 and June 13, 2001,
respectively) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 22, filed August 2,
1996) for appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art references, and the respective positions articulated
by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we will reverse the obviousness rejections of claims 1
through 5, 7 through 18, 32 through 34, and 36 through 38.
Independent claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, "the
electrodes have an electrode pattern, and said [electro-
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007