Appeal 2007-1963
Application 10/121,226
Hoyt, col. 15, ll. 20-36). Nevertheless, we agree with the Examiner that
Hoyt is reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed by Veliadis, i.e., using
a heated electron emitter to generate electricity from an ambient, naturally-
occurring field (See the heated composite thermoemissive plaque taught by
Veliadis at col. 4, ll. 46-62; see also the “hot cathode” electron emitter
taught by Hoyt at col. 56, l. 67).
We reach this conclusion even though Veliadis exploits a different
naturally-occurring ambient field than Hoyt. Instead of using the Earth’s
magnetic field (as used by Hoyt), Veliadis exploits the electrostatic voltage
potential that exists between the excess of positive ions found in the Earth’s
atmosphere and the excess of electrons present in the Earth’s surface (See
Veliadis, col. 1, ll. 12-20). However, because both Veliadis and Hoyt
generate electricity from ambient Earth fields using heated electron emitters,
we find an artisan having knowledge of Veliadis would also have reasonably
considered Hoyt as a means to generate electricity from an ambient Earth
field using a heated electron emitter. Moreover, we find that Hoyt does not
operate exclusively outside the upper reaches of the Earth’s atmosphere. See
Hoyt at col. 6, ll. 24-26: “Current is obtained from the ionosphere with
collection and emission occurring on opposite ends of the tether [emphasis
added].”
Our reviewing court has determined that “[a] reference is reasonably
pertinent if, even though it may be in a different field from that of the
inventor’s endeavor, it is one which, because of the matter with which it
deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in
considering his problem.” In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013