Appeal No. 2002-0510 Page 26
Application No. 09/139,309
We further find that Beck recognize a problem facing the use of mica.
Specifically, "discharge devices of the type in which the electrodes are separated by
solid dielectric material, such as paper or mica, are not suitable for such applications
because the dielectric is punctured by the discharge, thus forming an air gap which has
high breakdown voltage." P. 2, ll. 19-24. We also find that the latter reference solves
the problem of the high breakdown voltage associated with mica by substituting a
dielectric layer. Specifically, "lower electrode has an insulating coating 4 applied to its
surf ace to constitute the dielectric layer which separates the two electrodes. This
dielectric layer is made very thin in order to provide a low breakdown voltage, and its
thickness is preferably in the range from one-half to 5 mils. . . ." P. 1, l. 54 to p. 2, l. 5.
Because Beck invites changes to it embodiments, and Beck solves the problem of the
high breakdown voltage associated with mica, we find that a suggestion, teaching, or
motivation to combine, rather than a teaching away, flows from the references
themselves. Therefore, we affirm the obviousness rejection of claim 17 and of
claims 18-20, which fall therewith, over Slepian, Hyatt, and Beck.
Obviousness Rejections of Claim 31 over Downing and Hyatt; over Downing, Hyatt, and
Beck; and over Slepian, Hyatt, and Beck
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007