Appeal No. 1998-0126
Application 08/272,700
L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d at 1551,
1553, 220 USPQ at 311, 312-13.
Since Myochin teaches the use of AC voltage with a
totally different discharge device, and absent any viable
rational to combine references, we will not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Likewise, we will not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8 through 11, 15,
16, 19, 20, 21/(8,9,15,16), 22/(10,15,16), 23/11 and 24/11, in
that they depend from claim 1 and include the same unmet
combination.
Claim 4 includes the same sharp discharge ends,
additionally, coated with a material having a high electric
resistance. Appellants argue, “Myochin is directed to [a]
discharge device using a wire-type electrode, and thus any
coating, including a high electric resistance coating, is thus
neither disclosed nor suggested in view of this applied
combination of references.” (Brief-page 14.)
The Examiner states that Myochin teaches the coating
to be well known in that Myochin uses glass to cover the
discharge electrode 11a (Answer-page 4). At page 9 of the
9-9-
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007