Appeal No. 95-1994
Application 07/732,493
than referring to the surface of the sensor itself in Lalonde
as argued at the bottom of page 14 of the principal Brief on
appeal, the bottom of page 2
of appellants’ specification as filed indicates that the term
Ar is the overlapping surface of the conductive part on the
sensor plate or, in other words, the overlapping surface of
the conductive part with respect to the sensor plate.
In addition to the examiner’s arguments with respect to
claims 4 and 10 on appeal, we note that the teachings at the
bottom of col. 4 of Lalonde indicate that the comb-shaped
surfaces of a groove 15 in the embodiment shown in Fig. 2
would have indicated or suggested to the artisan plural
sensors. In any event, such is clearly taught in Andermo.
Finally, as to the specifics of dependent claims 6, 11
and 12, we reverse the rejection as it applies to these
claims. Although we recognize that the collective teachings
of the references relied upon may or could have been modified
to measure the fluid contained in a tank such as to measure
displacement in claim 6 and permittivity in claim 11 as well
as the more specific recitation in claim 12 of a conduit
having a dielectric substance therein whose level of
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007