Appeal 2006-2903
Application 10/296,359
The Examiner has entered the following grounds of rejection:
(a) Claims 1-5, 8-17, 20-23, 25, and 28 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Ashida.
(b) Claims 1, 7, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Denton.
(c) Claims 14 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Ashida and Gestermann.
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and applied prior
art, including all the arguments advanced by both the Examiner and
Appellants in support of their respective positions. This review leads us to
conclude that the Examiner's rejections over the Ashida reference are well-
founded. However, the rejection over the Denton reference is not well-
founded. Our reasons follow.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the
Examiner and the Appellants concerning the above-noted rejections, we
refer to the Answer, mailed May 22, 2006, and to the Brief filed April 25,
2006.
OPINION
The rejections over Ashida.
Claims 1-5, 18-17, 20-23, 25, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 (b) as anticipated by Ashida.1 The Examiner found that Ashida
describes a dimensionally stable gas diffusion electrode that comprises a
catalyst support material, a catalyst material containing coating composition,
and a stiff metallic baseplate (Answer 3). The Examiner asserts that the
1 Appellants have presented the arguments for the rejected claims together.
(See Br. 3). We select claim 1 as representative of the rejected claims.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007