Appeal No. 1998-0091
Application No. 08/404,054
21 and 22 or mention short-circuiting as a problem to be
solved by using his protective layers or his glass layers.
The examiner's argument for obviousness is that
[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to dispose the glass layer and the
insulation layer respectively [of Hegner] onto the
electrode 8 of Bell et al. since this will provide a
tight seal between the diaphragm and the substrate[]
and prevent short-circuits. It would also have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use
the original glass frit or a high temperature glass
for the insulation since making the insulation of
the same material as the glass layer[] will be
beneficial for sealing the layers. [Answer at 5-6.]
The examiner further explains that
[a]lthough Hegner et al. does not specifically
disclose that the glass layer and the insulating
layer are used to prevent short circuit[s], it would
have been obvious to one skilled in the art that if
two conductive surfaces are separated from [sic,
by?] a distance, then short circuit[s] can be
avoided. Therefore, applying further layers onto
electrode surfaces will prevent short circuits in
the capacitive transducer. [Answer at 8.]
We agree with appellants that the rejection cannot be
sustained, because the examiner has failed to establish that
one skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine
the teachings of Bell and Hegner for the purpose of curing a
-10-
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007