Appeal No. 1998-2975
Application No. 08/790,250
Accordingly, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 12, 14
through 18, and 51.
Claims 12, 17, 18, 43, 51, and 52 require a compressible
conductive ground plane. APA includes a ground plane, but
not a compressible one. Recognizing this, the examiner (Paper
No. 16) applies Schurter. Specifically, the examiner points
to Schurter's disclosure (column 3, lines 43-49) of a ground
shield of semi-conductive elastomer in an electrical connector
as a teaching for a compressible ground plane. Appellants
(Brief, pages 7-8) argue that there is no motivation to
combine APA with Schurter. We agree.
Nothing in Schurter suggests a reason why one would want
a compressible ground plane in a voltage protection device.
The examiner contends (Answer, page 6) that "having a
compressible ground plane as opposed to a rigid ground plane
would be desirable for mating or for fitting purposes," but
fails to provide any evidence to support this statement.
Merely that Schurter discloses a similar element and that APA
can be modified in the manner suggested by the examiner does
not make the modification obvious unless the prior art
suggested the desirability of the modification. In re Fritch,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007