Appeal No. 2004-1681
Application No. 09/749,216
In view of the above, we therefore reverse the rejection
of claims 9, 14-16, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
obvious over Schwalm in view of Comerci.
III. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 23-24 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Schwalm in view of
Becker
We consider claim 23 in this rejection.
We refer to the examiner’s position regarding this
rejection as set forth on page 6 of the answer. We refer to
pages 14-16 of the brief regarding appellant’s position
regarding this rejection. Appellant also presents arguments
on page 4 of the reply brief.
Claim 23 recites, inter alia, “a contact electrode
deposited on said handle”.
Appellant argues that neither Schwalm nor Becker
provides any teaching of depositing an electrode on the
switch handle. We agree. The examiner does not point to any
disclosure in the applied art teaching a contact electrode
that is deposited, nor does the examiner explain why such
would have been obvious in view of the applied prior art.
In view of the above, we reverse the rejection of claims
23 and 24.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007