Appeal No. 2000-2037
Application No. 08/810,055
pressure on the second electrode set, the first compressive
pressure applying means being separate and distinct from the
second compressive pressure applying means.” That would still
hold true even if we were to go along with the examiner’s
position that the composite resistive materials in Figure 6 of
Grosse-Wilde may be considered as physically spaced apart and
parallel to each other. The addition of the Moorhead patent
(particularly considering Figure 4 relied upon by the examiner)
does not help meet the recited limitation noted above. Since the
other independent claim (18) and all the dependent claims each
contain the above limitation, we do not sustain the rejection of
claims 3, 11, and 17-20 over Grosse-Wilde and Moorhead.
Grosse-Wilde and Karlstrom
The examiner rejects claims 3, 5, 6, 11, 13, 14, and 17-20
under this combination. Again, after reviewing the examiner’s
rejection and the examiner’s response to the appellants’
arguments, we are of the opinion that the examiner has not
carried his initial burden of making out a prima facie case to
reject these claims. We agree with the examiner (final rejection
at page 3) that Figure 9 of Karlstrom does show two composite
bodies 10a and 10b which are in parallel and physically spaced
apart, despite the protestation of appellants. The examiner at
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007