Appeal No. 97-2621
Application 08/432,442
of 60% greater would be outside of the appellants’ claimed
range and yet still function to reduce arcing. The examiner
has shown no motivation, stemming from the Chen disclosure, or
other evidence for one with ordinary skill in the art, to
arrive at the specific “30% to 50% greater” distance
limitation. Accordingly, the obviousness rejection of claim 2
cannot be sustained.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Chen is affirmed.
The rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as would
have been obvious over Chen is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007