Appeal No. 1996-3675
Application No. 08/259,933
temperature range of 450EF to 600EF (column 1, lines 17-21;
column 2, lines 10-15). Unlike Watanabe, Monter teaches
against using a silver-silver chloride alloy as the electrode
material (column 1, line 47 to column 2, line 9). Also,
unlike Watanabe, Monter teaches that holes 16 “allow water to
be communicated through the sleeve” (column 3, lines 63-65).
We do not find any teaching, motivation, or suggestion to
combine Watanabe with Monter as proposed by the examiner.
Nothing in these references suggests that the liquid junction
32 of Watanabe and the holes 16 of Monter are “art-recognized
equivalents.” Nor is there any teaching, suggestion, or
motivation to use the high temperature hydrogen reference
electrode of Monter in Watanabe as alleged by the examiner.
Contrary to the examiner’s position, we determine that each of
these applied prior art references diverges from and in fact
teaches away from the appellant’s claimed invention. W.L.
Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc ., 721 F.2d 1540, 1550,
220 USPQ 303, 311 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851
(1984) (holding that it is error to find obviousness where the
prior art references “diverge from and teach away from the
invention at hand”).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007