Appeal 2007-1963
Application 10/121,226
See also Appellants’ Specification at page 8:
Design constraints may make it difficult or impractical to
provide the requisite vertical displacement in some
implementations. One such embodiment 300 is shown in FIG.
3. In these embodiments, the ionizing effect of the electrically
conductive probe 105, shown in FIG. 1, can be enhanced by
including an ionization source 305 at the point 150 of the
electrically conductive probe 105 most distal from the electrical
load 110. For embodiments where the point 140 does not
contact the electrical ground 145, the ionization source 305 may
be located anywhere on the electrically conductive probe 105,
but the point 150 most distal the electrical load 110 may be
used to produce enhanced results. Where the electrically
conductive probe 105 is an array (e.g., the array 105d in FIG.
2D), each element of the array can include an ionization source
305 on the end thereof. The ionization source 305 contains a
low level, radioactive source of alpha or beta particles
encapsulated in a suitable material. Suitable alpha emitters
include, but are not limited to, isotopes of Polonium and
Americium (Am). Suitable beta emitters include, but are not
limited to, Tritium. Suitable encapsulating materials include,
but are not limited to, glass compositions such as silicate,
borosilicate, aluminasilicate, and borate. In some
embodiments, the point 150 can be doped with an alpha emitter
or a beta emitter during manufacture [emphasis added].
(Specification 8:1-19).
Therefore, for at least the aforementioned reasons, we find
Appellants’ “teaching away” argument unavailing.
Appellants further argue that the combination proffered by the
Examiner would render both Veliadis and Hoyt inoperative for their
intended purposes (Br. 11).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013