Appeal No. 2003-0346
Application No. 09/113,925
As evidence of obviousness of the subject matter on appeal,
the examiner relies primarily on the combined disclosures of
Homma and either Tomantschger or Kosek. According to the
examiner (Answer, page 3):
Homma discloses an AC impedance corrosion detection
device comprising an absorbent member 3 saturated with
a liquid electrolyte arranged over an open end of a
housing 20/22. An inernal [sic, internal] electrode 2
contacts the absorbent member and a biasing member 5 is
provided for urging the absorbent member against a
metal specimen, which acts as the other electrode. See
col. 4, line 64 to col. 7, line 63.
The examiner recognizes that Homma does not disclose the
claimed solid polymer electrolyte membrane. See the Answer,
pages 3 and 4.
To remedy this deficiency, the examiner relies only on the
disclosure of either Tomantschger or Kosek.2 See the Answer,
page 4. The examiner asserts (Id.) that:
Tomantschger (col. 6, lines 61-63) or Kosek (col. 5,
lines 7-10) discloses the use of a sold polymer
electrolyte (Nafion) for an electrochemical detection
device to be conventional.
The examiner then concludes (Id.) that:
It would have been obvious for Homma to replace the
absorbent member 3 with a solid electrolyte [membrane]
in view of the secondary references . . .
2 The examiner does not rely on Pletcher, Porter, Wolcott and
Kihira to teach the claimed solid electrolyte polymer membrane.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007