Appeal No. 97-1107 Page 7
Application No. 08/047,512
The examiner, recognizing that Barnes does not specifically teach a converging-diverging cell,
adds Rossiter and Lew to the rejection as further evidence of known cell and beam shapes. The
examiner cites Rossiter for the following teaching at column 3, lines 46-51:
The shape of the interior tubular portion should be so arranged that its cross-sectional area
at any point follows the optical beam of the particular spectrometer been [sic; being] used.
For example, the interior body portion could have a cross-sectional area which converges
from both ends to an intermediate throat.
Rossiter clearly teaches a cell with a converging-diverging shape.
Appellant’s main dispute is that Rossiter is directed to a metal cell of rectangular shape, not a
uniformly thick cell that is a body of revolution. While that is true, the examiner points out that Barnes
teaches both rectangular and cylindrical cells and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized
that the teaching of shaping the cell to conform to the IR beam could be transferred from one type of
cell to the other (Answer, pages 10 and 11). The key fact here is that Barnes teaches contouring the
cell to match the IR beam with respect to both the rectangular cast aluminum Beam Conforming
Demountable Cell and the glass Pyrex® Ultra Micro cell. That fact shows that Barnes recognized using
the concept of a cell shape that conforms to the IR beam in various types of cells.
Lew further shows a range of beam configurations for use in IR spectroscopy including beams
that converge and then diverge. See, for instance, the IR beams depicted in Figures 3 and 6 of Lew.
Appellant argues that Lew is directed to a totally different cell and principle of operation from that of
Barnes and Rossiter. That is of little consequence in this particular combination of references because
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007