Appeal No. 1998-2311
Application No. 08/401,869
With regard to the O’Donnell reference, it is apparent
that this reference was applied by the Examiner solely to
address the claimed feature of powering an electrode by
superimposing a DC voltage upon an RF voltage. Our review of
O’Donnell, however, reveals nothing which would overcome the
deficiencies of Heinrich alone or in combination with Walker.
We are further of the opinion that even assuming,
arguendo, that proper motivation were established for the
Examiner’s proposed combination, the resulting system would
fall far short of meeting the specific requirements of the
claims on appeal. The appealed claims set forth a specific
configuration and biasing arrangement for the control and
reference electrodes. The Examiner has provided no indication
as to how and where the skilled artisan might have found it
obvious to modify the teachings of Heinrich with Walker and
O’Donnell to arrive at the specifics of the language of the
various appealed claims. In order for us to sustain the
Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we would need to
resort to speculation or unfounded assumptions or rationales
to supply deficiencies in the factual basis of the rejection
before us. In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173,
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007