Appeal No. 2002-0510 Page 21
Application No. 09/139,309
of Hyatt was used in the device of Downing, the combination would have featured at
least three layers, wherein each layer would have featured a percentage loading of at
least about 55% by volume of conductive or semiconductive particles. Such a loading
would have satisfied the requirement that a first and third layer feature a percentage
loading of at least about 20% by volume of conductive or semiconductive particles and
that a second layer features a percentage loading of at least about 40% by volume of
conductive or semiconductive particles. Therefore, we affirm the obviousness rejection
of claim 11 and of claims 12-16, which fall therewith, over Downing and Hyatt.
Second, admitting that Downing and Hyatt fail to disclose "a dielectric polymer or
glass in the claimed range in contact with the component," (Examiner's Answer at 9),
the examiner concludes, "[i]t would have been obvious to vary the thickness of the
insulation layer of Downing to within the claimed range for the purpose of providing a
close fit in the housing, where close jacketing is disclosed at col. 3, lines 47-50." (Id.
at 9-10). The appellants argue, "[t]here is no teaching or suggestion in either Downing,
et al., or Hyatt that this insulation cover can be used as one (Claims 17 and 18), or two
(Claims 19 and 20), layers of the protection device, at least one of which is 1.6 mils in
thickness." (Appeal Br. at 18-19.)
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007