Appeal No. 98-2792
Application 08/516,257
separate from any optical fiber, light source, or detection
means, we note that the system broadly set forth in claims 15
and 16 on appeal is not limited to that embodiment and is
susceptible to the much broader interpretation which we have
applied above.
Based on the foregoing, we will sustain the
examiner’s rejection of appellant’s claims 15 and 16 under 35
U.S.C.
§ 102(b) relying on Schultz.
Turning next to the examiner's rejection of claims
1, 2, 4 through 9, 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Komives, we note that each of the independent
claims 1 and 15 on appeal requires a sensor capsule having or
defining “a single undivided processing chamber.” When this
recitation is read in light of appellant’s disclosure and
given
its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent therewith,
it is clear that the sensor capsule has one and only one
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007