Appeal No. 1998-0126
Application 08/272,700
Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 995, 217 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
"Additionally, when determining obviousness, the claimed
invention should be considered as a whole; there is no legally
recognizable 'heart' of the invention." Para-Ordnance Mfg. v.
SGS Importers Int’l, Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237,
1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing W. L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v.
Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309 (Fed.
Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984)).
In the interest of brevity and simplicity, the
Examiner has made a single rejection which encompasses the
various combinations of several different aspects of the
invention. These major aspects are the use an AC voltage
component, a coating material having a high electric
resistance, a D-P relationship of 4#D/P#6 and a conductive
material of nickel, chromium and molybdenum. Each major
aspect has been combined with a discharge member having sharp
discharge ends in different independent claims, and
interchangeably appended dependent claims, along with multiply
dependent claims. We find the Examiner’s approach quite
5-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007