Appeal No.2000-1286
Application No. 08/832,672
reasoning in support of the rejection, and to appellants'
Brief (Paper No. 15, filed July 8, 1999) and Reply Brief
(Paper No. 19, filed November 10, 1999) for appellants'
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art reference, and the respective positions articulated
by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we will reverse the anticipation rejection of claims
1, 3, 6, and 7.
Independent claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, "said
short-circuiting electrode interposes between and electrically
connects said pair of detection electrodes." The examiner
asserts (Answer, page 4) that Saijo shows "short-circuiting
electrode 14 interposes between and electrically connects the
pair of detection electrodes 33a, 33b." Appellants, on the
other hand, contend (Brief, pages 4-5, Reply Brief, pages 3-4)
that Saijo's short-circuiting electrode cannot interpose
between the detection electrodes as the detection electrodes
abut against the short circuit electrode in a superimposing
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007