Appeal No. 2001-0684
Application No. 09/205,668
(CCPA 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1057 (1968). We do not find that Wollesen or
Chittipeddi teaches the limitation of extending around a predominant part of the central
portion of the electrically insulating region. The examiner admits that Wollesen does
not teach a region that extends around a predominant part of any region, but relies
upon the teachings of Chittipeddi regarding peripheral element 215 that is substantially
annular. (See answer at page 6.) We disagree with the examiner’s findings.
Appellants again reiterate in the reply at pages 2-4 that neither Wollesen nor Chittipeddi
teaches or suggests the claimed invention having a protection structure with a
peripheral portion that extends around a predominant part of a central portion of an
insulating region. We agree with appellants that neither Wollesen nor Chittipeddi
clearly teaches or suggests this limitation.
The examiner relies upon the teaching of Chittipeddi in Figures 5 and 6. (See
answer at page 6.) The examiner maintains that Figure 5 “can clearly be seen as being
annular” and in Figure 6 element 311 is “almost completely annular.” We disagree with
the examiner’s findings since element 311 in Figure 6 is merely a conductor connecting
the two comb-like portions 309 and 310. Appellants have submitted a definition of
annular with the reply which provide the ordinary definition as shaped like a ring. From
our review of the teachings of Chittipeddi, we find not an annular or ring-shaped portion
in Figure 6 as required by independent claim 23 nor do we find that the stress relief
holes in Figure 5 element 307 form a peripheral portion extending around a
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007