Appeal No. 1996-1736
Application 08/418,267
unpatentable over appellant’s admitted prior art in view of
Sasaoka, Wooton and Adams.
Reference is made to the brief and the answer for the
respective positions of the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
The obviousness rejetion of claim 17 is reversed.
It is acknowledged in appellant’s admitted prior art that
“[p]ositive and negative high voltages are applied to separate
electrodes,” and that “[d]ispersal of the ions is usually
accelerated by directing an airflow through the electrode
region and out into the room” (Specification, page 2).
Sasaoka discloses (Figures 1 and 2) that it is known to
configure an electronic air cleaner so that an ion generating
source is located between the air inlet and the fan. The air
outlet is located on the other side of the fan.
In Wooton, all of the different embodiments (Figures 2
through 4) only use a negative ion emitter. In the latter
embodiment (Figure 4), all of the metal whiskers 58 located
around the support ring 54 emit negative ions. The whiskers
do not emit positive ions.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007