Appeal No. 2002-0510 Page 20
Application No. 09/139,309
We address the two points of contention between the examiner and the
appellants. First, the examiner asserts, "Hyatt discloses conductive and
semiconductive particles at 70% at col. 5, lines 20-40, for the purpose of providing
overvoltage protection and to tailor the resistance to the desired value and altering the
clamping voltage, col. 9, lines 13-21. It would have been obvious in view of Hyatt to
employ particles in the claimed range in the device of Downing et al. or Slepian for the
purpose of altering the resistance and clamping voltage." (Examiner's Answer at 7.)
The appellants argue, "[n]one of these references teach the use of different layers
having different particle loadings. . . ." (Appeal Br. at 17.)
As explained regarding the obviousness rejection over Slepian and Hyatt,
claim 11 merely requires that a first and third layer feature a percentage loading of at
least about 20% by volume of conductive or semiconductive particles and that a second
layer features a percentage loading of at least about 40% by volume of conductive or
semiconductive particles. It does not require that layers feature different particle
loadings.
As also explained regarding the obviousness rejection over Slepian and Hyatt,
Hyatt's composition comprises a binder having dispersed therein at least 55% by
volume of conductive or semiconductive particles. We find that when the composition
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007