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 of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007