Appeal No. 1999-2202
Application No. 08/733,620
perspective, it is clear that no basis exists for the examiner’s
viewpoint that patentee’s magnetic fields would be capable of
performing the coil-affecting function required by the here
rejected claims.
Under these circumstances, the section 102 rejection of
claims 1, 5, 12, 13 and 15-17 as being anticipated by Barnes
cannot be sustained.
The only claim distinctions acknowledged and addressed by
the examiner in his section 103 rejection based on Barnes alone
relate to “electromagnetic coils for generating the magnetic
fields” and to “the target materials” (answer, page 5). As a
consequence, even assuming it would have been obvious to modify
Barnes so as to account for such distinctions, the rejection
still would be improper since the above discussed deficiency
would remain outstanding. It follows that the examiner’s section
103 rejection of claims 1-5 and 12-17 as being unpatentable over
Barnes alone also cannot be sustained.
In rejecting claims 6, 7 and 18-21 over Barnes in view of
Ohno, the examiner designates “the use of first and second
[electromagnet] coils to generate a magnetic field” (answer, page
6) as the sole distinction of these claims over Barnes and
concludes that it would have been obvious to provide Barnes with
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007