Appeal No. 2002-0510 Page 15
Application No. 09/139,309
glass distinct from the layer of variable voltage material and in contact with one surface
of the layer of variable voltage material. . . ." Despite the appellants' argument, the
limitations require neither that the layer of neat dielectric polymer or glass overlie the
layer of variable voltage material nor play a role during an over-voltage protection
operation. Accordingly, the argument is moot.
Third, observing that "[a] dimension of .2 mils and 50 mils is described in
conjunction with 'thin' for prior art flexible electrodes," (Examiner's Answer at 6), the
examiner asserts, "it would have been obvious to employ the polymer of Xu et al. in the
claimed range for the purpose of making a thin flexible layer. . . ." (Id. at 6-7.) The
appellants argue, "one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated by the
teachings of Xu, et al. to use a neat dielectric polymer or glass in the claimed
thicknesses. . . ." (Appeal Br. at 15.)
Claim 5 specifies in pertinent part the following limitations: "the neat dielectric
polymer or glass layer is present in a thickness of less than about 1.6 mils."
"All of the disclosures in a reference must be evaluated for what they fairly teach
one of ordinary skill in the art." In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507, 510
(CCPA 1966)). "'A prima facie case of obviousness is established when the teachings
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007