Appeal 2006-2903
Application 10/296,359
Ashida. Rather, Appellants rely on the same arguments that were presented
in rebuttal to the rejection under §102 discussed above (Br. 7). Thus, for
the reasons presented in the discussion of the § 102 rejection above and the
reasons presented by the Examiner, we will uphold the rejection of claims 14
and 15.
For the foregoing reasons and those set forth in the Answer, we
determine that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
unpatentability under §§ 102 and 103, which have not been adequately
rebutted by Appellants. Accordingly, the Examiner's rejections under
35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 are affirmed.
The rejection over Denton.
Claims 1, 7, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b) as
anticipated by Denton. We reverse this ground of rejection for the reasons
presented by the Appellants in the Brief. Upon careful review of the Answer
and the Denton reference, we cannot determine which element of the
reference the Examiner is relying upon to describe the rigid support of the
gas diffusion electrode. As such, for this ground of rejection, the Examiner
has failed to establish a prima facie case of anticipation. The Examiner's
rejection is reversed.
CONCLUSION.
The rejection of claims 1, 7, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b) as
anticipated by Denton has been reversed. The rejections of claims 1-5, 8-17,
20-23, 25, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b) as anticipated by Ashida and
claims 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Ashida and
Gestermann have been affirmed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007