Appeal No. 97-2621
Application 08/432,442
in the prior art for the function which it performs in the
appellants’ invention, i.e., to keep out interference from
stray magnetic fields. The mere fact that the reference makes
no mention of extending the linear projections of G2b beyond
the apertured portion of the G3 electrode does not help the
appellants, since under In re Bager, 47 F.2d at 952, 8 USPQ at
486, it is a separate requirement that “the first patent
contains no suggestion of the way in which the result sought
is accomplished by the second inventor.” The appellants also
have failed to demonstrate that the illustration at issue as
shown in Chen’s Figure 2 was unintended and not appreciated by
Chen. Again, the mere fact that the reference makes no
mention of the usefulness of the feature does not establish
that Chen did not appreciate its effects. It has not been
adequately explained by the appellants why Chen could not have
appreciated that the linear extensions from the G2b electrode
as shown in Figure 2 would have the effect of minimizing
interference from stray magnetic fields.
What the appellants do argue in their brief is both
erroneous and misplaced. First, the appellants believe,
erroneously, that Chen’s Figure 2 should illustrate the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007