the top of the outer wall 13” which is the same as the recited position of
“along opposing lateral sides of the channel.”
Contrary to Appellant’s arguments that Tyler does not define the term
“envelope” (Br. 6), Tyler does describe the envelope as rectangular block 10
which is machined to form four outer walls and a number of internal
dividing walls that define the channels (col. 3, ll. 14-20). Therefore, locating
the electrodes internally of the envelope (Tyler, col. 6, ll. 22-23) actually
allows the electrodes to be positioned inside the channels along the dividing
walls.
In view of the analysis above, we find that Tyler prima facie
anticipates claim 15 as the reference teaches all the recited features.
Additionally, Appellant does not argue claims 17-19 separately from their
base claim and thus, allows these claims to fall with claim 15.
2. 35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejection
With respect to the rejection of the remaining claims, Appellant relies
on similar arguments discussed above and merely asserts that Paolini1 does
not cure the deficiencies of Tyler. Accordingly, as Appellant fails to point to
any error in the Examiner’s position with sufficient particularity, we remain
unconvinced by Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 16 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
3. Other arguments addressing prosecution of related applications
Appellant further argues that the claimed feature requiring the electric
field generating means be positioned “along opposing lateral sides of the
1 Although the effective date of Paolini is after the foreign priority date
claimed by Appellant, absent a showing that a certified translation of the
priority document is filed, we do not find any error is the examiner’s
position.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013