Appeal No. 2000-1091 8
Application No. 08/874,167
Finally, as to the specific limitation of claims 2 and 20 which requires the
simultaneous occurrence of electro-osmosis and joule heating, inasmuch as Pool discloses a
direct current with an alternating current superimposed thereon, it is reasonable to expect
that both electro-osmosis and joule heating occurs at the same time as required by claims 2
and 20, particularly as Pool discloses multiple arrangements of electrodes including in the
example with 9 groups of anodes connected to a cathode. See column 5, line 63 to
column 6, line14. Superimposing an alternating current on a direct current as suggested
by Pool would result in the requisite electro-osmosis and joule heating.
Based upon the above findings and analysis, we conclude that the examiner has
established a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the claimed subject matter.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4 through 20 and 22 through 24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pool in view of Carrigan is affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007