Appeal No. 2003-0527 Page 3 Application No. 09/036,291 measure the charge flowing to the materials, and disconnect the voltage source from the electrodes in response to the measurement indicating that a predetermined amount of the charge has been transferred to the materials. Claims 8 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,368,673 ("Okuda") or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Okuda. Claim 9 stands rejected under § 103(a) as obvious over Okuda and either U.S. Patent No. 5,820,648 ("Akaike") or U.S. Patent No. 5,717,287 ("Amrine"). Claim 11 stands rejected under § 103(a) as obvious over Okuda and U.S. Patent No. 4,631,728 ("Simons"). Claim 12 stands rejected under § 103(a) as obvious over Okuda and U.S. Patent No. 5,357,421 ("Tautz"). Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under § 103(a) as obvious over Okuda, Tautz, and Simons. Claims 15, 16, 19, and 20 stand rejected under § 103(a) as obvious over Okuda, Tautz, and either Akaike or Amrine. Claims 17 and 18 stand rejected under § 103(a) as obvious over Okuda, Tautz, either Akaike or Amrine, and Simons. OPINION Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or the appellants in toto, we focus on the point of contention therebetween. The examiner asserts, "since rate is measured and a power profile over time established, an amount of charge would be predetermined because Okuda et al also establishes hold times for the application ofPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007