Appeal No. 2004-1681
Application No. 09/749,216
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 9, 14-16, and 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Schwalm in
view of Comerci
We consider claims 9, 14, 15, and 21 in this rejection.
We refer to page 6 of the answer regarding the
examiner’s position in this rejection.
We refer to pages 9-14 of the brief regarding
appellant’s position for this rejection. Appellant also sets
forth arguments on pages 2-3 of the reply brief.
Claim 9
Claim 9 includes the language “pattern deposited” on the
outer surface.
On page 2 of the reply brief, appellant points out that
Comerci does not teach a pattern 92 on a plate 90, but a
conductive discharge shield 90 having a plate portion 92 that
is not deposited on the inner surface of the wallplate. We
agree. The examiner rebuts and states that plate 92 has a
pattern. However, apertures 98 are not a pattern “deposited”
on the outer surface of a wall plate.
Furthermore, on page 3 of the reply brief, in paragraph
no. 11, appellant states that the examiner’s combination
ignores the fact that the incorporation of Comerci’s
electrostatic discharge shield 90 will change the principle
of operation of the device of Schwalm. Appellant argues that
“if the Schwalm electrode is placed behind the faceplate
(with or without the insulating housing), it is not available
for human contact, while the Comerci invention requires a
conductive prong coupled to a plug to discharge electronic
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007