Appeal No. 1999-2241
Application No. 08/714,914
[T]he appellants' invention as a whole includes the use
of two gaskets as a means of providing an increased
service life for the electrode, lengthening the time
interval between recalibrating or replacing the
electrode, decreasing the probability that the
fluoride-sensing crystal will fracture due to pressure
placed on it to hold it securely in place and to form a
seal, and permitting the fluoride-sensing crystal to be
replaced without replacing any other part of the
electrode.
We, like the examiner (examiner's answer, pages 5-6), do not
find this argument to be persuasive for the reasons stated in the
answer. In addition, we note that the appellants have not
directed us to any objective evidence (e.g., declaration
evidence) demonstrating that the alleged additional benefits of
using two gaskets, as opposed to a gasket and a sealing compound,
would have been considered unexpected by one of ordinary skill in
the art. On this point, naked attorney arguments or conclusory
statements are not enough to rebut a prima facie case of
obviousness. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470, 43 USPQ2d 1362,
1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In any event, we point out that the
motivation provided in the prior art does not have to be the same
as that of the appellants for the purpose of establishing a prima
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007