Appeal No. 96-2391
Application 08/002,286
We turn first to the rejection of the claims based upon
the teachings of Opresko and Larson. Opresko basically teaches a
power cathode assembly of the type admitted by appellants to be
prior art in figures 1 and 2. The examiner notes that Opresko
does not teach the claimed second layer of the bimetallic
laminate which overlays the entirety of the first layer of the
bimetallic laminate, and the claimed bimetallic laminate which
varies in thickness along the central axis [answer, page 4]. The
examiner cites Larson as evidence that the two noted differences
between the claims and Opresko would have been obvious to the
artisan [answer, pages 4-5]. Appellants make several arguments
in support of their position that the rejection is erroneous, but
we will only consider the argument which, in our view, is most
persuasive. That argument is that there is no teaching,
suggestion, incentive or inference in the prior art that would
lead the artisan to combine the teachings of Opresko and Larson
to arrive at the claimed invention.
The major problem in combining the teachings of Larson
with the teachings of Opresko is that the two references
essentially defeat the very purpose of each other. Opresko has
the emissive coating material at the closed end of the cathode
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007