Appeal No. 1999-1748
Application 08/846,285
(page 10) that, as to the depicted phenomena of Figures 7 through
10 (spark plasma), the precise mechanics thereof are not known.
With this in mind, we consider the examiner’s spark plasma
analysis (answer, page 6), leading to the conclusion that
appellants’ process and the Dahn process are “nearly identical”,
to be both reasonable and supportive of the view that Dahn would
have been suggestive of the claimed perforation distortion
creating a spark plasma thereacross. Again contrary to the
argument that the features of claims 24, 25, 26 and 27 are not
found in the secondary reference (main brief, page 15), we
determined above that the evidence of obviousness would have been
suggestive of the content of these claims. Similarly, and as
explained above relative to claims 28, 29, and 35 through 39, we
disagree with the viewpoint (main brief, page 16) that these
claims are patentable over the applied references.
REMAND TO THE EXAMINER
We remand this application to the examiner to consider the
following matters.
12
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007