Appeal 2007-0169
Application 10/262,015
disclosure of the present application. We observe nothing in this record
relied upon by the Appellants, which requires us to import limitations from a
patent application different from the present application. The Appellants
simply have not demonstrated that the Examiner’s interpretation is
unreasonable. Accordingly, we concur with the Examiner that Pisharody
would have rendered the subject matter of claims 1 through 3, 5, and 24
anticipated within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
35 U.S.C. § 103(a):
In rejecting claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner takes the
position (Answer 4-5) that:
Pisharody et al disclose a device as described above in
addressing claims 1-3, 5, and 24. Pisharody et al also disclose a
means for applying voltage to the electrodes which would
require two conductive members extending across the
nanolaminated structure. (Figure 8; Paragraph 0088; Common
connections to both electrodes in each pair requires two
separate conductive members).
Pisharody et al do not explicitly disclose that the
conductive members are disposed at opposite ends of the
laminated structure.
However, it would have been obvious to one having
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
modify the device of Pisharody et al by positioning the
conductive members at opposite ends of the structure, because
it would minimize the chances of an inadvertent short circuit,
which would render the device inoperative. Additionally, such
positioning of the members is a matter of design choice to a
skilled artisan, who could select any appropriate position to
make the connections.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013