Appeal No. 1997-1266
Application 08/078,791
Appellant argues that TuXuan does not teach establishing
a quasi-static magnetic field in the battery as claimed while
subjecting the battery to an alternating magnetic field.
Also, Appellant argues that it would not be obvious to combine
TuXuan with DeLanty since DeLanty is non-analogous art. We
have found, supra, that DeLanty is analogous art. As noted
supra, DeLanty solves the same problem, and we might add, in
the same way claimed by Appellant, by causing static magnetic
sturation of the interferring metal. Thus, we agree with the
Examiner that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to have used DeLanty’s solution to the
problem in TuXuan, a combination that meets the requirements
of Appellant’s claim 1.
It is the burden of the Examiner to establish why one
having ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the
claimed invention by the express teachings or suggestions
found in the prior art, or by implications contained in such
teachings or suggestions. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 995,
217 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Therefore, we find that the Examiner has shown that the
prior art suggested the desirability of the modification as
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007