Appeal No. 2004-2379
Application No. 09/710,769
introducing the protective gas into an intermediate space between the
baffle arrangement and cathode material surface such that the gas
escapes through the baffle opening from the intermediate space.
Akamatsu does not describe cathode section 2 as a baffle, and we do
not find that the space into which Akamatsu’s gas projects can be
fairly interpreted as between any baffle arrangement and the cathode
material. Also, we agree with appellants that the examiner seems to
define the passage between enclosure 2 and chamber 1 of Akamatsu to be
both the baffle opening and the intermediate space. However, as
explained by appellants, “[t]he gas cannot escape through one area
from another area if these areas are the same” (page 2 of reply brief,
last 2 sentences).
The examiner’s citation of Klaus in support of the § 103
rejection of claims 25-27 does not remedy the basic deficiency of
Akamatsu described above.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007