Appeal No. 2002-0113
Application 08/799,923
have been obvious, and we therefore affirm the rejection of
claims 1-15.
IV. The rejection of claims 16 through 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy, with or without
Westermann, in view of the admitted prior art
Claim 16 requires numerically modeling current and voltage
distribution in a proposed structure as part of a process of
designing a cathodic protection system having a continuous
uniform cathodic protection throughout the structure.
The examiner has not explained how or why Westermann or
Murphy teaches uniform distribution in a cathodic protection
system, nor is there any explanation of how appellants’
disclosure is faulty in this regard.
Nor has the examiner explained that Westermann’s anode
groups provide for continuous uniform distribution of cathodic
protection throughout the entire structure as required by
appellants’ claim 16. Westermann, in discussing the background
art, indicates that individual adjustment to the current to each
anode is not normally allowed (column 1, lines 64 through column
2, line 1 of Westermann). Such individual adjustment is not
necessarily compatible with uniform current distribution, and the
examiner does not point to any disclosure in Westermann that
teaches that a continuous uniform distribution of cathodic
protection is provided by the system of Westermann.
Because the examiner has not directed our attention to any
teaching in the applied art of designing a cathodic protection
system having continuous uniform distribution of cathodic
protection throughout the structure, we reverse.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007