Appeal No. 96-1474
Application 08/041,765
For his part, appellant does not deny that Veith
discloses the claimed invention but for the non-magnetic spacers.
Rather, appellant contends that because Veith and Scott are
directed to different and incompatible types of focusing
structures for TWTs, the examiner's combination is improper and
can only be arrived at by picking and choosing elements in
accordance with appellant's claims. Appellant also contends that
the age of the references (more than twenty years old) leads to a
finding of non-obviousness [brief, page 9]. Appellant further
contends that there would have been no motivation to combine the
teachings of Veith and Scott since Veith does not require a
vacuum seal within the tunnel bore (because it is intended to be
utilized with a discharge vessel that contains the electron beam
and helix) while any desirability of a vacuum seal in Scott "is
entirely within the context of a cylindrical geometry focusing
system" [brief, page 10] and Scott does not suggest that the
vacuum seal would be applicable to other focusing systems, such
as the rectangular geometry focusing system of Veith.
First, with regard to appellant's argument regarding
the age of the applied references somehow being indicative of
non-obviousness of the claimed subject matter, we agree with the
examiner that the age of the references, per se, is not
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007