Appeal No. 2003-0992
Application 09/934,026
We are in full agreement with the examiner’s discussion beginning from the last four
lines on page 2 of the final rejection (Paper No. 7) to line 7 on page 4 of the same paper. That
discussion is reproduced below and herein adopted as our own:
Dresen et al disclose the truck bed receptacle with side walls 42, front wall
34, and longitudinally corrugated bottom panel 18 joining the side and front walls.
Dresen et al. shows wheel wells 28. The receptacle is made of a high density
polyethylene, a thermoplastic material. Dresen et al lacks the claimed mixture of
a non-conductive plastic and a conductive material selected from the group
consisting of carbon particles and carbon fibers. “Mixture” is interpreted per the
dictionary definition of “a portion of matter consisting of two or more
components” (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary”, tenth edition), or “any
combination of contrasting elements” (Random House College Dictionary, 1980).
The appellant acknowledges that in Kuhns it is disclosed that a metallic spike is formed
which extends through the pallet which is otherwise made of non-conductive material, to
dissipate or avoid the buildup of static electricity on the pallet. The appellant also acknowledges
that as an alternative to a metal spike, Kuhns uses a conductive element in the form of a plurality
of conductive particles contained within a suitable binder. The appellant indicates that in either
form, the spike extends through the pallet, and it is also argued that Kuhns’ conductive particles
are not “in the material” of the pallet but are “in” a binder, i.e., the spike. (Supp. Brief at 10)
Specifically, with regard to claim 2, the appellant argues that at best Kuhns teaches use of
a spike formed of conductive particles contained in non-conductive material, and thus does not
teach a pallet fabricated of a material comprising a mixture of non-conductive plastic and a
conductive material selected from the group consisting of carbon particles and carbon fibers.
With regard to claim 6, the appellant argues that Kuhns teaches a conductive spike extending
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007