Appeal 2007-2550
Application 10/321,182
Accordingly, because claims 87-89 depend or ultimately depend upon
claim 40, we cannot sustain the § 103(a) rejection of claims 87-89 over
Kucherovsky in view of Lake.
We reverse the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claims 87-89 over
Kucherovsky in view of Lake.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 90
Claim 90 depends upon independent claim 38, the rejection of which
under § 102(e) over Kucherovsky we affirmed. Appellants have not
separately argued claim 90. Rather, Appellants rely on their arguments
made with regard to the rejection of independent claim 38. However, we are
unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments regarding the § 102(e) rejection of
claim 38 over Kucherovsky.
Therefore, we affirm the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claim 90
over Kucherovsky in view of Lake.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) REJECTION OVER KUCHEROVSKY IN VIEW OF
FUJITA
Appellants argue that neither Kucherovsky nor Fujita discloses a
discontinuous current carrying structure formed by an internal current
collector and an external terminal within the seal area (Br. 9). Appellants
further argue that there is no motivation to provide a discontinuous current
carrying structure within the seal area of Kucherovsky or Fujita (Br. 9).
We have considered all of Appellants’ arguments and are unpersuaded
for the reasons below.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013