Ex Parte BURGHER et al - Page 2



          Appeal No. 1999-1387                                                        
          Application No. 08/593,507                                                  

               According to appellants, the invention is directed to a grid           
          anode for cathodic protection of a steel reinforced concrete                
          structure where the anode is formed of multiple valve metal strips          
          including multiple electric current-carrying metal strips                   
          consisting of a valve metal (Brief, page 6).  A copy of                     
          illustrative independent claim 1 is attached as an Appendix to this         
          decision.                                                                   
               The examiner has relied upon the following references as               
          evidence of obviousness:                                                    
          Taki                           4,997,492          Mar. 05, 1991             
          Mussinelli2 (Mussinelli ‘934)   5,062,934         Nov. 05, 1991             
          Watkins (GB ‘912)              896,912            May 23, 1962              
          (published British specification)                                           
               Appellants rely upon the following references as evidence for          
          non-obviousness (e.g., see the Brief, pages 9-11):3                         
          Mussinelli (Mussinelli ‘502)   5,104,502          Apr. 14, 1992             
          Bennett et al. (Bennett ‘961)  5,423,961          Jun. 13, 1995             


               2The actual name of the patentee for this listed reference             
          is “Mussinellil.”  However, it appears that this is incorrect               
          (see Mussinelli ‘502 infra).  Since appellants and the examiner             
          both refer to this document as Mussinelli, we adopt this same               
          nomenclature for uniformity.                                                
               3A discussion of the other reference cited by appellants as            
          evidence of non-obviousness is unnecessary to this decision (see            
          the Brief, page 11).                                                        
                                          2                                           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007