Appeal No. 1999-1607
Application No. 08/820,238
moving plate where the extension itself does not move, it has
been held that merely rearranging the parts of an invention,
where the rearrangement itself does not significantly affect the
operation of the device, involves only routine skill in the
art.”
Appellant argues (brief, page 5; reply brief, pages 2 and
3) that the disclosed and claimed mounting arrangement of the
electrical circuitry on the backside of the capacitor plate was
developed to save space (specification, page 2, lines 15 through
18). Thus, appellant concludes (reply brief, pages 2 and 3)
that “if the plate of Bell is utilized, it would necessarily
increase the size of Sato’s device significantly.” We agree.
More importantly, we disagree with the examiner’s unsupported
contention that it would only be a matter of routine skill in
the art to locate the electrical circuit components in the
manner claimed by appellant.
In summary, the rejection of claims 1 through 3 is reversed
because the examiner has not presented a prima facie case of
obviousness.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007