Appeal 2007-1893
Application 10/946,753
the plain meaning of the term “surrounding.” For these reasons, we will not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7.
Similarly, with respect to claim 8, we do not see how the catalyst
shown in Figure 1(c) can be equidistant from the perimeter of the growth
field in all directions as claimed. Not only does the electrode not surround
the catalysts as discussed above, the respective catalyst structures shown in
Figure 1(c) have unequal intervals. In view of this unequal spacing, we fail
to see how the catalysts can be equidistant from the perimeter of the growth
field – a perimeter that the Examiner has not clearly identified, but which we
assume is the area between the electrodes.
For the foregoing reasons, we will also not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 8.
III. New Grounds of Rejection Under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)
Claims 30-32 are Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the
basis for the obviousness rejections set forth in this opinion:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not
identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this
title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be
patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole
would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter
pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which
the invention was made.
Claims 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Shin in view of Zhang or, alternatively, Appellants’
17
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013