Appeal No. 1998-2975
Application No. 08/790,250
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art references, and the respective positions articulated
by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims
12, 14 through 18, 43, 51, and 52.
Claims 12, 14 through 18, and 51 recite, in pertinent
part, "a voltage variable material" and "a reinforcing layer
having a substantially constant thickness embedded in the
voltage variable material" (underlining added for emphasis).
The examiner points to the admitted prior art to Collins (APA,
pages 3-4), describing an insulating sheet with plural holes
filled with variable voltage materials, as being a reinforcing
layer impregnated with voltage variable material. The
examiner (Answer, page 3) then relies on the disclosure at
page 8, lines 8-11 of the specification, wherein appellants
seem to equate a reinforcing layer embedded in a voltage
variable material with a reinforcing layer impregnated with
the voltage variable material. The examiner asserts that
since Collins discloses a reinforcing layer impregnated with
voltage variable material and appellants' statement on page 8
of the specification makes such a layer interchangeable with a
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007