Appeal No. 1996-1556
Application No. 08/154,135
(Fed. Cir. 1992). (A prior art disclosure of an extremely
large chemical genus by itself does not necessitate a finding
of obviousness for a claimed feature that falls within the
genus).
The examiner relies on the remaining references to
demonstrate obviousness regarding the operation of a solid
electrolyte gas sensor in the current mode or the application
of a plurality of sensors and voltage biasing means for
different analytes. These references are not relied upon to
show the importance of using a solid electrolyte having the
claimed ionic conductivity in an amperometric sensor.
Accordingly, we conclude that the examiner has not discharged
his burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness
within the meaning of 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
In view of the foregoing, we reverse the examiner’s
decision rejecting the appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
No period for taking any subsequent action in connection
with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
REVERSE
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007