Appeal No. 2002-0706
Application No. 09/194,773
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and
prior art, including all of the arguments advanced by both the
examiner and the appellants in support of their respective
positions. This review has led us to conclude that the
examiner’s Section 103 rejection is well founded. Accordingly,
we will sustain the examiner’s Section 103 rejections for the
reasons set forth in the Answer and below.
The examiner finds (the Answer, page 4), and the appellants
acknowledges (the specification, page 2) that Kurishita teaches
chamfering (blunting) the edges of a sintered ceramic sensor for
determining the oxygen content in exhaust gases of internal
combustion engines. See also Kurishita, the abstract and column
2, line 63 to column 3, line 47. Chamfering, according to column
3, lines 6-23, of Kurishita, is effective in releasing thermal
stress from the sintered ceramic oxygen sensor.
The examiner recognizes that Kurishita does not expressly
mention that chamfering is carried out prior to sintering the
ceramic oxygen sensor. See the Answer, page 4. To remedy this
deficiency, the examiner relies on the disclosure of Nenadic. We
observe that Nenadic, like Kurishita, is directed to chamfering
the edges of ceramic substrates. See the abstract, together with
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007