Appeal No. 2003-2136 Page 10
Application No. 09/562,952
1697(Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ
459, 467 (1966); In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 998, 50 USPQ 1614, 1616 (Fed. Cir.
1999); In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995)).
Here, the appellants admit, "Figure 11 of Oshima '98 shows a chip 6 having a
smaller diameter connected to a constricted end 4A [of a center electrode] having a
larger diameter." (Appeal Br. at 11.) Because the reference teaches that "the
diameter (D) of the firing [chip] tip 6 is smaller than a diameter (Do) of the constricted
end 4A," col. 6, ll. 44-46, of a center electrode (4), we find that the surface area of the
chip is smaller that the surface area of the electrode to which it is attached. Contrary to
the appellants' argument, Oshima '569 permits, if not prefers, a difference between the
diameter (D) of a noble metal chip and the diameter (d) of an electrode to which it is
attached. Specifically, "[t]he dimension (d-D)/2 is preferably in the range of 0.1 mm-
0.15 mm." Col. 8, ll. 40-41. Figure 9b of the reference shows, moreover, that the
surface area of its noble metal chip (2) is smaller than that of the electrode (1) to which
it is attached.
3. Properties of Molten Bond
The examiner asserts, "one can not [sic] weld such noble metal chips [of
Osamura] to the center electrode as disclosed by Oshima '98 and Oshima '69 and
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007