Appeal No. 1999-1258
Application No. 08/854,332
escape of gas that can accumulate at the anode” (id.). Finally,
the examiner concludes that Warne’s disclosure of a cathodic
protection anode with a shape “similar” to louvers “enhances the
obviousness” of using a louver anode in a cathodic protection
system (id.). We disagree.
As correctly argued by appellants (Reply Brief, pages 2-3),
the examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is not based on a proper
factual foundation since Boulton does not disclose or suggest
that louver anodes can be “easily manufactured.” As correctly
quoted by appellants (id.), Boulton merely teaches that “louvres
are conveniently produced from a sheet of film-forming metal”
(col. 2, ll. 47-48, underlining added). Furthermore, the
examiner’s conclusion that “louvers have wider openings than the
apertures of a mesh” (Answer, page 4) is not based on any facts
on the record before us. Similarly, the examiner’s conclusion
that these “wider openings” facilitate the escape of gas has not
been supported by any factual evidence on this record.
We must also agree with appellants (Brief, pages 10-13 and
22) that the examiner has not provided any convincing evidence or
reasoning to support the proposed combination of Bennett and
Boulton, i.e., there is no convincing reasoning or suggestion for
substituting the louver anode strip of Boulton for the mesh anode
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007