Appeal 2007-1351
Application 10/628,942
Appellant submits in response that Stern teaches that the purpose of
the layer of excess charge 66 is to produce a constant electrostatic downward
force on tap beam 28, via tap beam electrode 47. In Appellant’s view, a
layer designed to hold the flexible member (tap beam 28) in contact with the
light guide (12) cannot be said to correspond to an “anti-adhesion layer” as
claimed. (Reply Br. 4.)
We observe that Appellant’s anti-adhesion layer may be embodied as
a “Teflon layer . . . .” (Specification 3: 11-12.)2 We find, consistent with
the Examiner’s position, that the plate material described by Stern may be
considered an “anti-adhesion” layer, notwithstanding the fact that the layer
contains charges tending to hold down tap beam 28 in a “normally on”
geometry (see Stern Fig. 5, depicting the “off” state). The simplest, thus
best, explanation for Stern’s teaching of a material for the layer is for
avoiding physical adhesion between any contacting surfaces when the tap
beam is flexed upward to the “off” state, such that in essence only the
constant static force determined by the implanted charges need be overcome.
Moreover, even if there were no physical contact between surfaces, we do
not see how a material formed from the same material as that taught by
Appellant cannot be considered an “anti-adhesion” layer, in view of the
breadth of claim 19. The claim does not require any more of the layer than
that it be provided on at least one of the movable element and the light
2 Both Stern and the instant application reflect improper use of a
trademarked term. “Teflon” is a word mark owned by E.I. du Pont de
Nemours and Company, used in commerce with a number of different
goods. The term when used in a generic sense most often refers to a
fluoropolymer having non-stick properties (e.g., polytetrafluoroethylene).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013