Appeal No. 2001-0684
Application No. 09/205,668
predominant part of the central portion of the electrically insulating region as recited in
independent claim 1. Appellants argue that the examiner has not set forth a prima
facie case of obviousness. (See brief at page 7.) We agree with appellants that the
examiner has not shown that either Wollesen or Chittopeddi teaches all of the elements
as claimed or the combination would have fairly suggested the invention as claimed.
Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and 23 and their
respective dependent claims.
CONCLUSION
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007