Appeal No. 1998-0126
Application 08/272,700
corona discharge device having sharp discharge ends, and that
Myochin teaches the use of AC voltages in a corona discharge
device. At page 7 of the answer the Examiner states, “The
examiner contends that MYOCHIN is directly applicable to
COMPTON because both are concerned with object charging.” At
page 12 of the Answer the Examiner states “Had Compton used AC
or Myochin used a sharp end instead of a wire, then again
anticipation would have been encountered.”
We agree with Appellants; the Examiner seems to have
missed the “point”. Myochin does not provide any indication
that other shapes of electrode ends would be applicable to
it’s teachings. Likewise, Compton provides no indication of
other suitable voltages, e.g., voltages other than DC. The
Examiner’s common thread of “object charging” falls short of
providing motivation to combine the AC voltage teaching of
Myochin with the sharp discharge ends of Compton. We agree
with the Examiner that Appellants’ arguments regarding the
question of ozone generation or decomposition is not recited
in claim 1 and thus is irrelevant to the claim limitations.
Nonetheless, the question of ozone effects could provide the
7-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007