Appeal No. 2002-0510 Page 24
Application No. 09/139,309
regarding the obviousness rejection over Slepian and Hyatt, claim 17 does not require
that layers feature different particle loadings. As also explained regarding the
obviousness rejection over Slepian and Hyatt, Hyatt's 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 17
and of claims 18-20, which fall therewith, over Downing, Hyatt, and Beck.
Second, observing that "Beck discloses the polymer or glass layer 4 in the
claimed range at col. 2, lines 1-10 for the purpose of adjusting the voltage
characteristics," (Final Rejection at 6), the examiner asserts, "[i]t would have been
obvious in view of Beck to employ a polymer or glass layer in the device of Downing or
Slepian as modified for the purpose of adjusting the breakdown voltage." (Id.) The
appellants do not contest the combination of Beck with Downing and Hyatt. They only
argue, "Beck, et al. actually teaches away from a combination with Slepian, and from
the invention, by stating that 'discharge devices of the type in which the electrodes are
separated by solid dielectric material, such as paper or mica, are not suitable [for
applications contemplated by Beck, et al.] because the dielectric is punctured by the
discharge, thus forming an air gap which has high breakdown voltage.'" (Appeal Br.
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007