Appeal No. 1997-2291
Application No. 08/422,667
argument (Brief, page 7) that “to the extent that the ‘750
European Patent discloses any material which is common to that
disclosed and claimed in the present application, it is not
prior art” to the present application. The examiner states
(Answer, page 15) that “[t]he claimed invention contains new
material not supported by [t]he 830,951 application.” On the
other hand, the examiner has not pointed to anything in the
application claims on appeal that is not found in the 830,951
application. For this reason, we will accept appellants’
conclusion (Brief, page 7) that the ‘750 European Patent
Application to Van Gorkum is not prior art with respect to the
present application. In short, the obviousness rejection is
reversed because Chang neither teaches nor would have
suggested the claimed invention set forth in claims 13, 21
through 25, 27, 36 through 38, 41 and 42.
In the obviousness rejection of claims 13 through 15, 17
through 24, 26 through 37 and 39 through 45 based upon the
teachings of Morimoto, Knapp ‘079 and Lyamikschev, the
examiner admits (Answer, page 8) that Morimoto does not teach
“the use of a material that has a secondary emission
coefficient at least equal to one for a given range of
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007