Appeal No. 1999-0928
Application No. 08/334,952
see claim 1 on appeal). Accordingly, we cannot sustain the
examiner’s rejection under section 102(b) since the examiner has
not found every limitation of the claims described by the
reference.
D. The Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
There are two rejections based on section 103 before us in
this appeal. In the first rejection, the examiner combines Pons
and Spaepen (along with the “admitted prior art”)(Answer, page
11). The examiner finds that Pons discloses the same method as
claimed but “lacks a specific showing of superimposing voltage
regimes” (Answer, page 12). Therefore the examiner applies
Spaepen for the disclosure of superimposing a high voltage pulse
regime on to a low voltage regime to obviate ageing phenomenons
(id.). From these findings, the examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to include superimposing voltage regimes in the
method of Pons, as taught by Spaepen, to have “enhanced curing
ageing phenomenons” (id.).
“When relying on numerous references or a modification of
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007