Ex Parte SHRIER et al - Page 22




                 Appeal No. 2002-0510                                                                                 Page 22                     
                 Application No. 09/139,309                                                                                                       


                         Claims 17 and 18 specify in pertinent part the following limitations: "a layer of                                        
                 neat dielectric polymer or glass in contact with at least one of said first, second and                                          
                 third layers wherein the neat dielectric polymer or glass layer is present in a thickness of                                     
                 less than about 1.6 mils."  Giving the claims their broadest, reasonable construction, the                                       
                 limitations require a layer of neat dielectric polymer or glass featuring a thickness of                                         
                 less than about 1.6 mils.                                                                                                        


                         "In In re Aller, 42 CCPA 824, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (1955), the [U.S.                                               
                 Court of Customs and Patent Appeals] set out the rule that the discovery of an optimum                                           
                 value of a variable in a known process is normally obvious."  In re Antonie, 559 F.2d                                            
                 618, 621, 195 USPQ 6, 8 (CCPA 1977).  There are, however, exceptions to the rule.                                                
                 The case "in which the parameter optimized was not recognized to be a result-effective                                           
                 variable, is [one such] exception."  Id. at 621, 195 USPQ at 9.  See also In re Yates,                                           
                 663 F.2d 1054, 1057, 211 USPQ 1149, 1151 (CCPA 1981) ("Table 1 examples, taken                                                   
                 as a whole, support appellant's position that degree of conversion was not recognized                                            
                 to be a result-effective variable.")                                                                                             


                         Here, although the passage cited by the examiner mentions that Downing's                                                 
                 "unitary assembly of varistors is closely jacketed by an insulation cover 28 (FIGURE 2)                                          
                 whereby the unit may be inserted into the cylindrical shell 12 and potted therein with                                           








Page:  Previous  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007