Appeal No. 95-0635
Application 07/768,255
permitting an absorption measurement directly on the sample in
the cavity of the cuvette in said wavelength range.
The prior art references relied on by the examiner are:
Banauch et al. (Banauch) 3,964,974 June 22, 1976
Lilja et al. (Lilja) 4,088,448 May 9, 1978
Pierre et al. (Pierre) 4,120,755 Oct. 17, 1978
Draeger et al. (Draeger) 4,551,427 Nov. 5, 1985
Tanaka et al. (Tanaka) 4,990,457 Feb. 5, 1991
(filed Apr. 4, 1989)
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
described by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Lilja. Claims 1, 3, 4, 7 and 12 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Pierre, Banauch,
Draeger, or Tanaka, either of those references considered alone
or further considered in view of Lilja. We shall reverse these
rejections.
DISCUSSION
The examiner's finding, that Lilja describes the disposable
cuvette of claim 8, is clearly erroneous. We summarily reverse
the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as described by
Lilja.
With respect to the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Lilja, the examiner bears the initial
burden of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability. In
re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007