Appeal No. 2004 1681
Application No. 09/749,216
specification discloses that the contact electrode can be
formed by fitting a metal cover over the wallplate.
Hence, we agree with the examiner’s position as set
forth on pages 4, 7, and 8 of the answer. The examiner
states that the electrode 44 of Schwalm is substantially
directly mounted to wallplate 12. See Figure 4 of
Schwalm.
In view of the above, we therefore affirm the rejection
of claim 1 (claims 2-8 fall with claim 1).
Claim 10
With regard to claim 10, claim 10 recites “at least one
contact electrode deposited substantially directly
thereupon.”
Beginning on page 7 of the brief, appellant argues that
the term “deposited”, as found in this phrase, relates to a
metal deposition, or a printing with conductive or resistive
ink deposition onto the wallplate, and the equivalence of
such deposition or printing process.
On page 8 of the answer, the examiner states that claim
10, along with claims 11-13 and 16-20, are directed to an
apparatus/product, rather than a method of manufacturing the
electrode itself, and the examiner therefore states that the
term “deposited” can be interpreted as meaning securing or
attaching on a wallplate.
The issue here is whether an electrode “deposited”
substantially directly thereupon results in a different
structure than that disclosed in Schwalm. The examiner does
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007