Appeal No. 1998-0126
Application 08/272,700
answer, the Examiner states:
It is to be noted per the above that it is the
entire structure CA of MYOCHIN [that] is a discharge
device. The AC is applied to 11a and 11c and thus
results in the ion generation. Thus 11a has much
more function than what applicants are asserting as
it is not 11c alone that generates the ions, but the
entire structure. The claim simply does not
preclude a configuration wherein COMPTON’s structure
24 would be that of MYOCHIN’s 11a and be
encapsulated by 11b and still use the other
electrode 11c as shown.
Again, it seems the Examiner has missed the “point.”
We find no motivation to use the coating of Myochin in a
corona discharge device having sharp discharge ends. The
Examiner’s reasons for combining Compton and Myochin in
rejecting claim 4 are the same as those in rejecting claim 1.
As noted supra, there is nothing other than hindsight, to
suggest the combination. As noted by the Examiner, if all
recited elements were found in one of the references,
anticipation of the invention would be found. However, there
must be something to suggest the combination, other than the
mere existence of each recited limitation appearing in
different references. Thus, we will not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 4. Likewise, we will not
-10-10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007