Appeal No. 2001-0319
Application 09/005,841
coating. Therefore, one skilled in the art is not taught that
the cathode and anode coatings should be made of different
specific metal oxides and is not put in possession of the claimed
invention. The portion of Ahmad relied on by the examiner, "a
porous electrode coating which may be of the same or different
composition on each side of the support material" (col. 5,
lines 38-40), does not state that the coatings on opposite
electrodes (cathode and anode) should be different, but states
that coatings on each side of the support material can have a
"different composition." It is not described what is meant by a
"different composition" but, manifestly, since the oxide coatings
are on the same support material, it would be impossible to have
different material oxides on each side, e.g., a molybdenum oxide
one side and a tantalum oxide on the other when the support
material is tantalum. Furthermore, Ahmad does not describe a
capacitor with cathode and anode having different specific metal
oxide coatings. We agree with appellants that the only way to
arrive at the claimed subject matter is by picking and choosing
from the list of materials in Ahmad without any guidance by Ahmad
and that this does not constitute an anticipation.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007