Appeal No. 2000-1075
Application 08/838,910
THE REJECTIONS
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows:
claims 21-26 and 36 over Torisu in view of Sakurai and Pollner,1
and claims 32-35 and 37 over Ker in view of Agarwal.2
OPINION
We reverse the aforementioned rejections. We need to
address only the independent claims, i.e., claims 21, 32 and 36.
Rejection of claims 21 and 36
The appellants’ claims 21 and 36 both require a high
emissivity layer having a porosity of more than 10% on a surface
of an internal electrode.
Torisu discloses an oxygen concentration sensor having on
inner and outer electrodes “protective layers made of alumina and
spinel and adapted to protect the electrodes and to limit the
flow of oxygen through the cathode” (col. 3, lines 5-8). Torisu
does not disclose the porosity of the protective layers. To
remedy this deficiency the examiner relies upon Pollner.3
1
1 In this rejection the examiner no longer relies upon Ker
and U.S. 4,212,720 to Maurer (answer, page 3).
2
2 A rejection of claims 21-26 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, is withdrawn in the examiner’s answer (page 2).
3 Sakurai is relied upon by the examiner for a disclosure of
a heater within a sensor element (answer, page 4), and not for a
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007