Appeal No. 96-2391
Application 08/002,286
that the teachings of Larson relied upon would only be combined
with the teachings of Opresko in order to reconstruct the claimed
invention, we agree with appellants that the examiner improperly
combined the teachings of these two references.
In conclusion, since the rejection of each of claims 1-20
is based upon an improper combination of the teachings of Opresko
and Larson, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-20 based
upon Opresko and Larson.
We now turn to the rejection of the claims based upon the
teachings of the admitted prior art, Larson, Buescher and Falce.
As we noted above, the admitted prior art of appellants’ figure 2
is basically the same as the Opresko power cathode discussed
above. Thus, the motivation for combining the teachings of
Larson with the admitted prior art is lacking for the same
reasons discussed above with respect to the rejection on Opresko
and Larson. Notwithstanding this fact, we must still determine
if the teachings of Buescher and/or Falce serve to overcome the
deficiencies in the combination of Larson and the admitted prior
art.
Buescher teaches a power cathode cap in which the
thickness of the sidewall is less than the thickness of the
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007