Appeal No. 1999-0928
Application No. 08/334,952
subject matter is inoperative or lacks enabling disclosure.
Accordingly, we cannot sustain the examiner’s rejections under 35
U.S.C. § 101 and § 112, first paragraph.
C. The Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
The examiner finds that Horvath discloses a method
comprising an electrolysis cell having an isotopic hydrogen
storage cathode, an anode, and an electrolyte comprising water,
with voltage sequences including a voltage pulse (Answer, page
11, citing col. 10, l. 60-col. 11, l. 26, and col. 13, l. 59 -
col. 14, l. 5).
Under § 102(b), anticipation or lack of novelty requires
that the prior art reference discloses, either expressly or under
the principles of inherency, every limitation of the claim. See
In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir.
1986). From the examiner’s findings noted above, there is no
explanation as to why the “voltage pulse” of Horvath describes
the claimed limitation of at least two cell voltage regimes, with
the first voltage enhancing cathodic absorption of hydrogen while
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007