Appeal No. 1998-1539
Application No. 08/683,186
at the exit window, via the supply of a thin metallic layer
for conduction of heat away from the window, it would
naturally follow for the artisan to apply that solution to
heat dissipation at the anode.
Appellants’ response to that is to contend that the
metallic element 7 of Jenkins for cooling the exit window
would be insufficient to cool the anode because the element is
not thick enough. However, appellants also admit, at page 1
of the reply brief, that artisans would have been quite aware
that an anode receives much more electrical power than does
the exit window. Accordingly, this reinforces our position
that the artisan viewing the teachings of Valkonet and Jenkins
would clearly have been motivated to modify the thickness of
Jenkins’ metallic element 7 so as to be applicable for cooling
the anode.
We also agree with the examiner that for all of
appellants’ arguing that the artisan would not have used the
metallic element 7 of Jenkins to cool an anode because it
would have been insufficient for the job, appellants have
presented no objective evidence to support this allegation.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007