Appeal No. 1999-2539 Page 6
Application No. 08/328,895
comprising at least one conductor having opposite ends adapted
for connection to an electrical power source and at least one
turn forming a coil intermediate the ends."
After reviewing the entire teachings of the applied prior
art, we find ourselves in agreement with the appellant (brief,
pp. 5-10) that even if the prior art were combined in the
manner set forth in the rejection under appeal it would not
provide the claimed invention. In that regard, the combined
teachings of the applied prior art do not teach or suggest "an
induction coil comprising at least one conductor having
opposite ends adapted for connection to an electrical power
source and at least one turn forming a coil intermediate the
ends" as recited in the claims under appeal. The examiner's
position that this induction coil limitation is met by the
electrodes disclosed in the applied prior art is without merit
for the reasons provided by the appellant in his brief.
Moreover, it is abundantly clear that the electrodes disclosed
in the applied prior art are not formed by "at least one
conductor having opposite ends adapted for connection to an
electrical power source."
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007