Appeal 2006-1786
Application 10/322,859
combine the applied references in the manner proposed, namely, in order to
provide the Furukawa thermistor with the advantages taught by Oguro to attend
use of a diffused layer. This exposition by the Examiner is reasonable and
supported by the applied references. Moreover, this exposition has not been
rebutted by the Appellants with any meaningfully specific technical or legal
reasoning.
In light of the foregoing, it is our determination that the Examiner has
established a prima facie case of obviousness for the rejection based on Furukawa
in view of Oguro which the Appellants have failed to successfully rebut with
argument or evidence of nonobviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445,
24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). We hereby sustain, therefore, the
Section 103 rejection of claims 1-8 as being unpatentable over Furukawa in view
of Oguro.
As for the rejection based on Oguro in view of Furukawa, the Examiner
states that “Oguro discloses the claimed invention except the end surfaces not
covered by the diffused layers” (Answer 5) and concludes that “it would have been
obvious in order to improve reliability, variation of resistance, adhesiveness, and
solderability, to form the Oguro device having the end surfaces free of glass layers
or diffused layers, especially where Furukawa discloses a concern for reliability
and stability and discloses a similar thermistor device” (Answer 6).
In rebuttal, the Appellants argue that, “[a]lthough Furukawa shows end
surfaces that are not covered by the glass layer 4, this does not mean that it was
obvious for Oguro to modify it’s invention so as to remove its diffused layer from
the end surfaces in order to make it look like Furukawa’s” (Br. 5).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007