Appeal No. 1998-0126
Application 08/272,700
sustain the rejection of claims 14, 22/14, 23/14 and 23/14,
since they are dependent from claim 4 and contain the same
unmet combination.
Claim 5 recites the same sharp discharge ends, and
additionally, that the pitch (P) between the ends, and the
distance (D) to the charge receiving member, are related in
accordance with 4#D/P#6. Appellants argue that the claimed
range achieves unexpected results and is not merely an
optimization of the 2 to 8 range, of which Compton fell into
(brief-page 15).
The Examiner questions the unexpected results,
indicating that the improvement to Appellants’ ratio range of
4 to 6 is merely the optimization of Appellants’ original
ratio range of 2 to 8, which range was met by Compton via a
ratio of 3.
We agree with the Examiner that Appellants have
optimized their ratio of 4 to 6 from their ratio of 2 to 8.
However, we find that Compton’s ratio of 3, falling within the
unclaimed range of 2 to 8, does not make the claimed range of
-11-11
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007