Appeal 2007-1939
Application 10/277,563
to support the internal edge of the disc-shaped solid-oxide sheet 63. For the
fuel delivery conduit through the frame element, the examiner notes the
perforated metal manifold tubes 35, 36 in the perforated ceramic tube 38.17
The examiner points to the compliant/flexible current leads 32, 3418 as
meeting the requirement for electrical conductors connected to the
electrodes. The leads are described as felt, wool, or fibrous mats.19 Figure 3
shows the lead 32 and lead 34 indirect contact with the anode 62 and
cathode 64, respectively.
Corning argues that Ketcham fails to show specific claim elements or
anything analogous, but did not provide its own specific claim construction
or file a reply specifically addressing the examiner’s claim construction.
Differences certainly exist between what Ketcham disclosed and what
Corning is now disclosing, but we must focus on the actual language of
claim 12.20 Corning's insistence that its invention and Ketcham's previously
disclosed invention are different is not evidence that would support a
reversal.21
HOLDING
Except as noted above, the examiner's reading of claim 12 is
reasonable. The noted exception is harmless in view of the way the
examiner actually applies the reference to the claim. Corning has given no
17 Ketcham at 5:55-60.
18 Ketcham at 5:51-55.
19 Ketcham at 6:9; cf. Spec. ¶0128 ("wire, ribbon, felt, or mesh").
20 Morris, 127 F.3d at 1056-57, 44 USPQ2d at 1030.
21 Cf. Biotec Biologische Naturverpackungen v. Biocorp., Inc., 249 F.3d
1341, 1353, 58 USPQ2d 1737, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (noting conclusory
statements do not raise genuine issues of fact).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013