Appeal No. 97-0866
Application 07/801,248
ion beam to achieve the advantages notes in the paragraph
bridging pages 3 and 4 of Winterberg (1980). Appellants
argue that the examiner's rejection provides no factual
basis for combining the references (Br6), that the examiner
does not show an ion beam with a mildly relativistic mean
velocity (Br6), and does not explain how Winterberg (1980)
teaches how to use ion beams instead of electron beams
(Br7). We agree with appellants that the examiner reasoning
fails to establish a prima face case of obviousness.
Winterberg (1980) does not disclose or suggest making
self-pinched, mildly-relativistic velocity positive ion
beams. As noted in the preceding paragraph, Winterberg
(1975) is deficient in teaching creating a plasma channel
and creating a beam that is pinched because of net currents
in the beam. Thus, even if the references were combined,
they would not suggest the claimed invention. The rejection
of claims 1-10 under Winterberg (1975) and Winterberg (1980)
is reversed.
- 11 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007