Appeal No. 2003-1915 Page 3
Application No. 09/423,232
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the Brief (Paper No. 18) and Reply Brief
(Paper No. 20) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
As explained on page 1 of the Brief, the appellants’ invention comprises a device
that compresses a stack of objects by means of pressing plates in which at least one
charging electrode is integrated into a pressing plate in order to enhance the
compression of the stacked objects by transferring an electrical charge thereto. To this
end, independent claim 82 recites, inter alia, two end elements opposite one another
which contact the ends of the stack of objects to compress the stack, and at least one
charging electrode comprising “a metal plate which contacts an end of the stack to
transfer a charge to the stack and is part of one of the two end elements.”
In the first of the two rejections of independent claim 82, it is the examiner’s view
that the subject matter recited therein would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art in view of the combined teachings of Hahne ‘651 and Hahne ‘257. In arriving
at this conclusion, the examiner has found that all of the subject matter recited in claim
82 is disclosed or taught by Hahne ‘651 except for “the specific teaching of at least one
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007