Appeal No. 2002-1191 Application No. 09/101,175 subject matter of claim 44. Consequently, the subject matter of claim 44 is not distinguishable from the electrochemical sensor of Makino. In any event, the combination of Makino and Furutani also renders the subject matter of claim 44 unpatentable. The Examiner has concluded that it would have been obvious to include in the Makino invention a additional protective layer over the porous cover that also covers the gas inlet. The Examiner relies on the teachings of Furutani in rendering his conclusion. (Answer, p. 4). The Appellants argue that the teachings of Makino and Furutani, either individually or in combination, do not teach or suggest completely covering a gas inlet opening with a cover layer and a separate porous cover over the gas inlet so that the porous cover completely covers the gas inlet opening. (Brief, p. 7, ll. 8-13; p. 8, ll. 2-5 and 20-23; Reply Brief, pp. 5-8 ). We agree with the Examiner. The additional cover layer would enhance the diffusion and protective function of the cover structure compared to a single covering layer. It is not disputed that Makino discloses the use of a single cover layer protection and Furutani discloses the use of multi-layer cover protection for a gas sensor. This prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that a gas sensor could be protected by use of cover layers individually or in combination. Moreover, it has long been held obvious to 7Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007