Appeal No. 1999-0928
Application No. 08/334,952
examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Pons in
combination with Spaepen and the “admitted prior art.”
With regard to the second rejection based on section 103,
the examiner finds that Timewell “substantially discloses the
claimed invention,” lacking only a specific showing of an
isotopic hydrogen storage cathode (Answer, page 12). Therefore
the examiner applies Sobieralski or Pons to show that isotopic
hydrogen storage materials (e.g., palladium) are known in the art
to be equivalent to aluminum for use as a cathode (Answer,
paragraph bridging pages 12-13). Accordingly, the examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to have substituted an
isotopic hydrogen storage material for the aluminum cathode of
Timewell (Answer, page 13).
Assuming arguendo that Timewell discloses all limitations of
the claimed subject matter except the use of an isotopic hydrogen
storage cathode, we do not agree with the examiner that the
secondary references disclose the equivalency of palladium and
aluminum in the art of electrolyzing water and therefore there is
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007