Appeal No. 96-0251
Application 07/874,697
cell preferably before the electrolysis current to the cell
has been stopped (col. 3, lines 3-31). The cell, under the
action of the protective current, may be submitted to any
desired operation such as cleaning (col. 3, lines 48-51).
The examiner argues that it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art to use Krebs’ protection
current in Lucisano’s sensor in order to minimize the
dissolution of the silver/silver chloride reference electrode
(answer, pages 6-7). The examiner, however, provides no
evidence that Krebs’ protection current would have this
effect. Thus, we find that the examiner has not established a
factual basis which is sufficient to support a conclusion of
obviousness of the invention recited in appellants’ claims 9,
11/9 and 14/9. We therefore do not sustain the rejection of
these claims.
DECISION
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 10, 11/10,
12, 13, 14/10, 14/12 and 14/13 over Lucisano alone or in view
of Perley, claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 11/1, 11/2, 11/7, 11/8, 14/1,
14/2, 14/7 and 14/8 over Lucisano in view of Hersch, Dahms or
13
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007