Appeal No. 1997-3142
Application No. 08/323,660
implementation of the method of Seiden et al.” The examiner
is also of the opinion (Answer, page 6) that “it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to mount the
sensors of Stanley et al. and Billetdeaux et al. in positions
in which they were least likely to interfere with each other
and to provide the sensors so that they had orthogonal paths
would be the geometrically optimum position given the optical
nature of both sensors.”
In response, appellants argue (Brief, page 14) that:
[N]one of Seiden et al., Billetdeaux et al. and
Stanley et al. provide the necessary motivation for
arriving at the present invention. In fact, the
Examiner has acknowledged that there is not a single
reference or teaching in the art which would provide
one of ordinary skill in the art with the incentive
to make the particular modifications of the present
invention, including the transmission of IR
radiation and emitted secondary light which travel
through the sample cell in substantially orthogonal
directions to permit the substantially simultaneous
measuring of an amount of IR radiation absorbed as
an indication of the concentration of CO gas in the
2
gas sample and an amount of secondary light emitted
as an indication of the concentration of O gas in
2
the gas sample.
Appellants also argue (Brief, page 14) that “[i]t is
Appellants who have discovered that if IR and emitted
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007