Appeal No. 1999-1319
Application No. 08/495,390
In the summary of the arguments, set forth at page 7 of the principal brief, appellants
list various advantages of the present invention over the art of record. These include: 1.
Allows operation with as small a force as possible; 2. Does not require its sensitive
members to be contacted; 3. Permits for the use of less expensive components and 4.
Permits for the use of fewer components. Whether or not any of these cited “advantages”
make for a patentably distinct invention, none of these “advantages” are set forth in the
instant claims.
For the reasons supra, we will sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 3 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e).
Although not set forth as a very strenuous argument, appellants do state, at page 7
of the principal brief, that claims 2 and 4 further define the sensitive member as made from
ceramic plate material and that “[n]one of the references teach this limitation either.” The
examiner’s response to this argument is to state that since input member 13 of Tanahashi
“is a nonconductor plate and is made of a dielectric and ceramic, paper, synthetic resin
and the like are classified as dielectric, the input member 13, thus, is made of a ceramic
plate” (principal answer-page 4).
The examiner’s position regarding claims 2 and 4 is clearly erroneous. If the
reference does not disclose or suggest the particular material claimed, viz., ceramic,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007