Appeal No. 1999-0734 Page 8
Application No. 08/686,495
Group 2: Claim 15
Claim 15 requires an electrode layer on the base of the ceramic body. The base must be
interpreted in the context of claim 13 as being the bottom surface of the ceramic body. The
language “ceramic body comprising a top, four sides normal to said top, and a base
interconnecting said sides” defines the outer dimensions of the body. We find no electrode on
the bottom surface of Rutt’s ceramic body. Therefore, Rutt’s structure is different from that of
claim 15. The Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of anticipation with regard to
the subject matter of claim 15.
Group 3: Claims 16 and 17
Claim 16, the claim we select to decide the issues with respect to group 3, requires that
the ceramic body have a serpentine cross-section. We agree with the Examiner that Figure 1 of
Rutt shows a serpentine cross-section (Answer at 4-5).
Appellants argue that the ceramic body is not serpentine in cross-section because granules
remain after fugitive material is burned away (Brief at 8). We cannot agree that these granules
result in a non-serpentine cross-section. When interpreting a claim, words of the claim are
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007