Appeal No. 1998-0380
Application No. 08/518,062
Claim 3
We sustain the rejection of claim 3/1 under 35 U.S.C. §
103, but reverse the rejection of claim 3/2 on the same
statutory ground.
Like the examiner (answer, page 8), we view appellants’
argument (main brief, page 10) specifying component spacing
"at their electrostatic breakdown distance", as not
commensurate with the claim language on appeal. From our
perspective, contrary to appellants’ viewpoint, one having
ordinary skill in this art would have certainly been expected
to establish appropriate electrode distances, as recited in
claim 3/1, that avoid the problem of electrostatic breakdown
and resulting damage. Our position on this matter presumes
skill on the part of those practicing this art, not the
converse. See In re Sovish,
769 F.2d 738, 742, 226 USPQ 771, 774 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In summary, this panel of the board has:
affirmed the rejection of claims 1, 5/1, and 6/1 under
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007