Appeal No. 2003-0688
Application No. 09/324,889
be formed of an aluminum-silicon carbide composite. The examiner
is incorrect in this regard. That is, on page 7 of appellants'
specification, as mentioned above, when the contact is made of a
semi-conductive material, the semi-conductive material must be
rendered conductive by a conductive coating or a conductive
electrical path formed therethrough or thereon. Only in this way
can the conductive contact be made of a semi-conductive material,
that is, the semiconductive material must be made conductive by a
conductive coating or a conductive electrical path made thereon.
We agree that Kitayama does teach that the blade/contact can be
made of a semi-conductive material (silicon carbide or alumina
coated with silicon carbide}. But this is not a teaching that
the semi-conductive material is rendered conductive by a
conductive coating or a conductive electrical path formed
therethrough or thereon. It is simply a teaching of using a
semi-conductive material as the blade/contact. There is no
teaching in Kitayama to make the semi-conductive material
conductive by a conductive coating or a conductive electrical
path formed therethrough or thereon.
Beginning at page 6 of the brief, appellants point out the
fact that Kitayama discloses contacts comprising a semi-
conductive material or insulated material, but does not teach to
make such contacts conductive contacts. We agree.
Because the applied prior art fails to teach "conductive
contacts", we reverse each of the rejections. We note that the
other applied references do not cure this deficiency of Kitayama.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007