Appeal No. 1998-2342 Page 11
Application No. 08/505,739
measuring thickness deviation across the surface or empirically deriving spacing data using such
measurements. Furthermore, the Examiner has not established that such measurement and derivation
steps would have been obvious from the teachings of Tepman or Sasaki alone or in combination with
any of the other relied upon references. Therefore, we reverse both the §102
rejection of claim 20 over Tepman and the §103 rejection of claim 20 over Tepman or Sasaki in view
of Tanaka and Hurwitt.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-5, 8, 14-16, 18, and 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a) is affirmed. The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-8 and 15-19 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 is also affirmed. However, the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 9-11, 13, and
20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) is reversed as is the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 9-13 and
20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007