Appeal No. 2004-1681
Application No. 09/749,216
equipment benefits from a discharge plate that is hidden from
human contact.” We agree, and note that the examiner does
not provide a convincing rebuttal regarding this point made
by appellant. Answer, page 10. The examiner merely refers to
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA
1981), and does not explain how one of ordinary skill in the
art would have incorporated the electrostatic discharge
shield 90 into the device of Schwalm without changing the
operation of the device of Schwalm.
We therefore reverse the rejection of claim 9.
Claim 14
Claim 14 requires that the resistor of the device of
claim 10 comprises a pattern made of resistive material
“deposited” on the inner surface of the wallplate. For the
same reasons that we reversed the rejection of claim 10
(regarding “deposited”), we reverse the rejection of claim
14.
Claim 15
With regard to claim 15, because claim 15 depends upon
claim 14 (which depends upon claim 10), we reverse the
rejection of claim 15.
Claim 21
With regard to claim 21, claim 21 depends upon claim 10,
and therefore we reverse the rejection of claim 21.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007