Appeal No. 95-4838
Application No. 08/131,643
lines 31-34. The specific removal of particulates from air,
is disclosed at column 12, lines 38-39, Tables I and II.
Likewise see Kito’s discussion of waste gas treatment, column
10, lines 15-31. We conclude that both Yeh’s and Kito’s
method necessarily requires the venting of electrostatically
treated air to air.
As to the requirements of claims 7 and 15 for two charged
grids to which high voltage alternating current has been
applied, the examiner, in support of his rejection refers to
20 and 27 (presumably 30 rather than 27) of Yeh and 4a and 4b
of Kito as evidence of two charged grids to which high voltage
has been applied. In contrast, appellants argue only that
none of the cited references teach or suggest this further
limitation. See Brief, Page 10 and 11. In the absence of
showing any specific deficiency in the examiner’s position we
are constrained to agree with the examiner’s position that the
specified limitations are disclosed by the art of record.
We turn next to the rejection of claims 8, 16, 18 and 19.
The examiner in his Answer relies upon Howard for disclosure
of the required mist screen. However, neither in the final
rejection, Paper No. 4, dated September 20, 1994 nor in the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007