Appeal No. 2005-2168 Παγε 5
Application No. 10/122,616
Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re King, 801 F.2d
1324, 1327, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
JP’575 discloses an ionization electrode 4 which creates a corona discharge
when a DC current is applied. This corona discharge charges the suspended particles
(0012). It is reasonable to find that this corona discharge is caused by the ionization of
the air stream by ionization electrode 4 and that it is these ions which charge the
suspended particles. As such, we are of the opinion that the examiner has a
reasonable basis for finding that ionization of the stream in JP'575 does occur even
though it is not expressly disclosed.
Therefore, the burden has shifted to the appellant to prove that ionization of the
stream does not occur in the JP'575. This the appellant has not done.
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We
will likewise sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 2-4, 6, 8, 11, 25 and 27 as these
claims stand or fall with claim 1 (brief at page 9).
In regard to claim 12, the examiner finds that the catalytic reactive filter (6)
includes a titanium dioxide reaction coating on an activated carbon filter that would be
inherently desorbable by heating at a temperature in the range between 120 and 180
degrees (answer at page 4). The examiner directs our attention to the patent
Dougherty, US Patent No. 5,912,423 which teaches that activated carbon is disorbable
when heated. In our view, the examiner has a reasonable basis for finding that the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007