Appeal No. 1996-1736
Application 08/418,267
Adams teaches the use of insulated structures to prevent
the neutralization of negative ions (column 4, lines 53
through 60). The ions produced by Adams are always negative.
Appellant argues (Brief, page 9) that “the Examiner’s
proposed assemblage of elements separately disclosed in these
citations of prior art, without any direction for doing so
found in the admitted prior art, or in any of the cited
references, merely constitutes improper hindsight
reconstruction of these references using the instructions for
doing so that are found only in the appellant’s own
disclosure.” Appellant’s argument to the contrary
notwithstanding, the examiner had no need to resort to
appellant’s disclosure for a teaching of specifically locating
the ion generating source between the air inlet and the fan
(Sasaoka) or for a teaching of the use of insulating
structures to prevent the neutralization of the ions that are
generated (Adams). On the other hand, we agree with
appellant’s argument (Brief, pages 9 and 10) that:
[N]ot one of the citations of prior art in any way
discloses a pair of ion-generating electrodes
operating at opposite voltage polarities disposed
upstream of the fan that creates the air flow past
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007