Appeal No. 2002-0510 Page 16
Application No. 09/139,309
from the prior art itself would . . . have suggested the claimed subject matter to a
person of ordinary skill in the art.'" In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783, 26 USPQ2d 1529,
1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143,
147 (CCPA 1976)).
Here, Xu discloses that the thickness of a "thin lamina electrode," col. 3, l. 8
(emphasis added), is "about 0.2 to 35 mils. . . ." Id. at l. 10. By describing its "flexible
laminate," id. at l. 20, as "very thin," id. at l. 19 (emphasis added), the reference implies
that the thickness of the latter is less than thickness of the thin lamina electrode.
Because the thickness of the lamina electrode is at least 0.2 mils, one of ordinary skill
in the art would have inferred that the thickness of the very thin flexible laminate is less
than 0.2 mils. Such a thickness is less than the claimed "about 1.6 mils." Therefore,
we affirm the obviousness rejection of claim 5 and of claims 6-8, which fall therewith,
over Xu.
Fourth, the appellants argue, "[c]laims 9 and 10 recite a second layer of neat
dielectric polymer or glass in contact with a second surface of the layer of variable
voltage material. Xu, et al. neither teaches nor suggests such a second layer, and the
examiner does not address this omission." (Appeal Br. at 15.)
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007