Appeal No. 97-2621
Application 08/432,442
rejection of claim 1 as being anticipated by Chen is
sustained.
The Obviousness Rejection
Claim 2 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by the
examiner as being obvious over Chen. Claim 2 specifically
requires that the distance between each of the linear
projections on the G2 electrode to the corresponding channel
on the G3 electrode to be approximately 30% to 50% greater
than the distance between the G2 and the G3 electrode at the
respective apertured portions thereof. Chen’s specification
contains no discussion in that regard and Chen’s Figure 2 does
not illustrate the appellants’ claimed 30% to 50% greater
range. Nonetheless, the examiner concluded that whatever Chen
discloses would have been a functional equivalent to the
appellants’ claimed 30% to 50% greater range. We find the
examiner’s conclusion to lack a sufficient supporting basis in
the disclosure of Chen.
That Chen’s putting some distance between G2 and G3 would
reduce arcing between the G2 and the G3 electrodes does not
make all range features equivalent. Moreover, the appellants’
range is limited to the 30% to 50% greater range. A distance
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007