Appeal 2007-0970
Application 10/732,580
we will sustain the Examiner’s rejections for essentially those reasons
expressed in the Answer.
The principal argument advanced by Appellants is that neither of the
applied references, Lowrey nor Hudgens, discloses the presently claimed
stylus having a phase change tip. Appellants emphasize that the phase
change material of Lowrey and Hudgens is described as cup-shaped and,
therefore, cannot constitute a phase change tip having an apex, as presently
claimed. However, as pointed out by the Examiner, figures 4G and 6 of
Appellants’ Specification depict the apex of the stylus as having a flat lower
end in contact with the first electrode. Hence, we agree with the Examiner
that there is a general correspondence between the shape of Appellants’
phase change material in contact with the first electrode and the shapes of
the phase change materials of Lowrey and Hudgens that are in contact with
the electrode. Consequently, to the extent the shape of Appellants’ phase
change material in contact with the first electrode is defined as a stylus
having a tip or apex, we agree with the Examiner that Lowrey and Hudgens
fairly describe such a stylus of phase change material within the meaning of
§ 102. Stated otherwise, what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
In re Myers, 410 F.2d 420, 161 USPQ 668 (CCPA 1969). Significantly,
Appellants have chosen not to define the dimensions of the claimed stylus
tip in such a way that it distinguishes over the dimensions of the phase
change material described by Lowrey and Hudgens.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013