Appeal No. 1997-1676
Application No. 08/255,010
not established a prima facie case of anticipation under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) or double patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Similarly, we agree with appellant that there is no
suggestion or motivation to determine a fractional area for
the distribution of current flow in advance based on the total
area to be treated and distribute current flow only to the
fractional portion of the total area to be treated at a
current density which is inversely proportional to the ratio
of the predetermined fractional portion to the total area to
be treated as required by the claims on appeal. Although
Manning states enhancement of an area in which the current has
not been distributed, it does not recognize that the
enhancement is caused by the so-called “spill over” effect as
alleged by the examiner. In fact, as pointed out by
appellant, Manning surmises that the enhancement may be
attributed to “temperature effects” or “the result of a
reduction of macrocell action in the column.” See page 9.
There simply is no evidence in the record to support a
conclusion that one of ordinary skill in the art was aware of
the so-called “spill over” phenomenon at the time of the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007