Appeal No. 2004 1681
Application No. 09/749,216
U.S.C. §112, ¶ 6 (2003); see also In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d
1189, 1193, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1848 (Fed. Cir. 1994)(en banc).
With regard to the disclosure of appellant’s
specification, as pointed out in the brief, by appellant,
there are several embodiments regarding the contact
electrode, in the specification, which include an electrode
affixed substantially directly to the wallplate, deposited on
the wallplate, suspended from the wallplate, extended to or
from its periphery, and integrated into the wallplate by
making the wallplate, or a portion thereof, of highly
resistive material. Brief, page 18.
As discussed supra, electrode 44, as shown in Schwalm’s
Figure 4, is affixed in a manner such as being extended to or
from the periphery of the wallplate or affixed substantially
directly to the wallplate. As explained by the examiner on
page 4 of the answer, Schwalm discloses an electrostatic
device 10 having a fixture wallplate 12, an electrode 44, for
providing a contact point 86. Hence, Schwalm reflects the
corresponding structure as set forth in appellant’s
specification, and therefore anticipates claim 22. Hence, we
affirm the rejection of claim 22.
In summary, we affirm the rejection of claims 1-8 and
22, but we reverse the rejection of claims 10, 11, 12, 13,
and 17-20.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007