Appeal No. 2005-0805
Application No. 10/234,097
Appellants submit at page 4 of the brief that “[c]laims 1-5
fall together and claim 1 represents the invention.”
Accordingly, all the claims stand or fall together with claim 1.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants’ arguments
for patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with
the examiner that the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of
§ 103 in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we will
sustain the examiner’s rejections for the reasons set forth in
the answer, and we add the following primarily for emphasis.
Appellants admit that it was known in the art to use
stainless steel electrodes and mass spectrometers of the type
claimed. In addition, appellants do not contest the examiner’s
factual determination with respect to the disclosures of Redmond
and Shiokawa. As explained by the examiner, Redmond evidences
that it was well known in the art to bake stainless steel in a
temperature range of 200oC - 700oC in an air atmosphere in order
to form a protective oxide layer. Shiokawa teaches that
stainless steel can be reconditioned by baking to remove gases
which are absorbed on the surface.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007