Appeal No. 97-2881
Application No. 08/387,166
passive, non-armored substrate of the claimed invention could
hardly be imagined.” Appellant argues (Brief, page 8) that
Kothe “is, in fact, a typical safe which relies on armored
walls; it is totally remote from the non-armored shield
characteristics of Applicant’s claimed invention.” Based upon
the teachings of Kothe, appellant also argues (Brief, pages 9
and 10) that:
Absent Applicant’s disclosure, there is no reason
why one of skill in the art would have been
motivated to combine this bulky, high voltage,
corona discharge system with the structure of Kraft
to protect an outdoor telephone box. To the
contrary, the artisan would have been strongly
motivated (by both safety and operability concerns)
away from attempting to incorporate such a bulky,
high voltage, high current system[s] in an exterior
environment such as the armored telephone line
protection system of Kraft. There is simply nothing
in the prior art itself to suggest the desirability
of the proposed combination.
We agree. Appellant has correctly concluded that “Kothe
operates on different detection principals than the present
invention and does not use the claimed non-conductive
substrate” (Brief, page 11), and that “Kraft has no
penetration detection of any kind whatsoever” (Brief, page
12). As indicated supra, Kothe uses a corona discharge
detection system to trigger the alarm, and not a short circuit
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007