Appeal No. 95-4369
Application 08/117,242
The appellants further argue that in Jowitt, the inductively
coupled plasma source is not remotely located from the detector
as is specifically required by all of claims 45, 64, 73 and 81.
It is not altogether clear what the claim term "remotely located"
means. The specification does not particularly define it. No
minimum distance is specified, either for defining remoteness or
a boundary of contamination. The claims also do not specify a
functional requirement for the remoteness of the location. The
specification discloses merely that the emissions from the
inductively coupled plasma source is not directly observed by the
spectrometer, but through a lens 36 which focuses the emissions
37 into an optical fiber 38 for transmission. Accordingly, we
interpret "remotely located" as it applies to the placement of
the plasma source relative to the detector to mean an arrangement
wherein the emissions from the plasma source is not directly
viewed by the detector but through a transmission medium such as
an optical fiber link.
Given the meaning accorded the term "remotely located" as
defined above, the appellants are correct that Jowitt and Bowen
do not disclose or suggest remotely locating an inductively
coupled plasma source from its associated detector.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007