Appeal No. 1997-2291
Application No. 08/422,667
based upon the teachings of the additionally cited references.
If the dynode 16 in Freeman is the duct referred to by the
examiner (Answer, page 12), it does not correspond to the
claimed duct structure, function and location. In summary,
the obviousness rejection of claims 13 through 15, 28 through
30, 33 and 43 through 45 is reversed because the examiner has
not presented a prima facie case of obviousness.
DECISION
Inasmuch as all of the rejections are reversed, the
decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
Kenneth W. Hairston )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
Lee E. Barrett )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
Stuart N. Hecker )
Administrative Patent Judge )
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007