Appeal No. 2002-1284 4
Application No. 09/098,730
preferably porous. See Answer page 3, and column 6, lines 50 to column 8, line 38 of
Mase.
In the rejection before us a basic finding of the examiner is that, “[i]t is common
knowledge that a solid electrolyte is non-porous. Otherwise, a measurement gas and a
reference gas on opposite sides of the electrolyte layer would intermingle and defeat the
operational principle of the sensor. Note that in figures 5 and 7 of Mase, a measurement
gas passes into contact with measuring electrode 58 on one side of solid electrolyte layer
56, while a reference gas passed into contact with reference electrode 64 on the opposite
side of the solid electrolyte. See col. 8, lines 42 to col. 10, line 4 of the patent.
Similarly, an insulating layer, such as layer 50 of Mase, should be non-porous so as to
avoid the possibility of current leakage.” See Answer, page 4.
Although the appellants have stated that, “Mase does not teach that the electrically
insulating layer 54 is more porous (or even less porous) than the adjacent layers; rather
Mase is silent on this point,” Brief page 4, and the appellants further state, “that the
claims differ from Mase ‘456 to the extent they call for the boundary layer to have an
average sintered particle size larger than or different from those of the electrolyte layer and
insulating layer is an artifact from a previous rejection, at which point the claims specified
more broadly that the average sintered boundary layer particle size is larger than that of the
electrolyte substrate layer but simply different than that of the insulating substrate layer”,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007