Ex Parte Gotou et al - Page 8




                 Appeal No. 2003-2136                                                                                  Page 8                     
                 Application No. 09/562,952                                                                                                       


                 Rh prevents the volatilization consumption of Ir," col. 3, l. 66 - col. 4, l. 1, "[t]he addition                                 
                 of Rh is most effective, mostly because Rh has a melting point of 1960°C. . . ."  Col. 4,                                        
                 ll. 1-2.  Because Oshima '198 invites modifications and additions to the Ir-based alloy of                                       
                 its chip, and Osamura discloses that an Ir-Rh alloy improves heat resistance and                                                 
                 consumption resistance, offers a high melting point, and prevents volatilizing, we are                                           
                 persuaded that the references would have suggested forming a spark plug's firing tip                                             
                 chip from an Ir-Rh alloy and using laser beam welding to bond the chip to a front end of                                         
                 a center electrode.                                                                                                              


                                                 2. Chip Area vis-á-vis Electrode Area                                                            
                         The examiner finds, "Oshima '98, figure 11, teaches a spark plug having a noble                                          
                 metal chip welded on a flat end surface of the center electrode wherein . . . the center                                         
                 electrode has a larger diameter than the noble metal chip"  (Examiner's Answer at 3.)                                            
                 The appellants argue, "[o]n the other hand, Oshima '69 mentions at column 8, lines 30-                                           
                 34 that it is preferable not to provide a diameter difference, in order to attain a better                                       
                 penetration of laser beams. "  (Appeal Br. at 11.)                                                                               


                         In addressing the point of contention, the Board conducts a two-step analysis.                                           
                 First, we construe the representative claim to determine its scope.  Second, we                                                  
                 determine whether the construed claim would have been obvious.                                                                   








Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007