Appeal No. 1998-3081
Application No. 08/587,292
Appellant argues that the examiner used impermissible hindsight. (See brief at page
5.) We disagree with appellant. Appellant argues that the examiner has not set forth a
prima facie case of obviousness nor a convincing line of reasoning for the combination of
the teachings of Andres and Jenkins. (See brief at page 5.) We disagree with appellant,
as discussed above. Appellant argues that Jenkins does not provide a reasonable
expectation that twisted contacts would be successful in overcoming contact bounce. (See
brief at page 6.) We disagree with appellant. As discussed above, Jenkins clearly
discloses and suggests the use of twisted contacts to reduce contact bounce. Therefore,
these arguments are not persuasive.
Appellant argues in the reply brief that the use of twisted contacts is not a known
solution to bounce in all switches. (See reply brief at pages 1-2.) While we agree with this
statement in view of the disclosure in Jenkins, it is clear that Jenkins does suggest that
twisted contacts is a very effective solution to contact bounce. Appellant has provided no
evidence to the contrary. Therefore, we accept the teaching and suggestion of Jenkins.
Therefore, this argument is not persuasive. Appellant argues that the examiner merely
sets forth legal tests and truisms without application thereof in the answer. (See reply brief
at page 3.) This argument is not persuasive. Since appellant has not rebutted the prima
facie case of obviousness, we will sustain the rejection of claims 1-5, 7-9 and 22.
CONCLUSION
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007