Appeal No. 2001-0319
Application 09/005,841
anode (FR3). The examiner interprets the statement in Ahmad that
"'[s]econd electrically conducting material' (having a high
surface area) refers to a porous electrode coating which may be
of the same or different composition on each side of the support
material" (col. 5, lines 37-40) as meaning that the cathode and
anode can be made of different materials.
Appellants argue that Ahmad does not include any direction
or suggestion as to which oxide coatings ought to be combined in
opposing electrodes of the same capacitor and the absence of any
teaching for employing the metal oxides in pairs fails to
disclose the claimed capacitor structure (Br10). It is argued
that there is no teaching for making a selection from the Ahmad
"laundry list" that falls within the scope of the first group of
claims and that picking and choosing is an impermissible basis
for an anticipation rejection (Br10).
The examiner responds that "[Ahmad] clearly discloses in
col. 5, lines 35-47, that the coating on the substrate can be of
the same or different composition" (EA7).
We find that Ahmad does not describe the claimed subject
matter and, hence, does not anticipate. Ahmad does not describe
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007