Appeal 2007-1963
Application 10/121,226
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s proffered combination of
Veliadis, Hoyt, Gregory and McLuckey does not remedy the deficiencies of
these references for the same reasons previously discussed (Br. 17).
In response, we see no deficiencies with respect to Veliadis, Hoyt,
Gregory and McLuckey, as discussed supra.
Appellants argue again that McLuckey is outside the scope and
content of the prior art. Appellants assert that McLuckey is not properly
combinable with Veliadis, Hoyt, and Gregory because McLuckey is from
another field of endeavor. Specifically, Appellants argue that detecting and
analyzing a gaseous substance using a glow discharge ionization source that
operates at a subatmospheric pressure (as taught by McLuckey) is from
another field of endeavor than the instant claimed invention (Br. 17-18).
We disagree. We note that the Examiner merely relies upon
McLuckey to show that it was well known in the art to use beta and alpha
emitters as ionization sources (See Answer 11). The Examiner further
points out that Appellants’ Specification discloses that such ionization
sources (i.e., alpha and beta emitters) are commercially available (See
Answer 11, see also Specification 8).
After carefully considering all of the evidence before us, we find
McLuckey’s teaching of ionization sources (col. 6, ll. 37-47) is reasonably
pertinent because such ionization sources would have been of interest to an
inventor at the time of the invention. See In re Clay, 966 F.2d at 659. In the
words of the Supreme Court, “familiar items may have obvious uses beyond
their primary purposes.” KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1742.
15
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013