Appeal No. 1997-3142
Application No. 08/323,660
secondary light travel in orthogonal directions, interference
is avoided.”
In the absence of any evidence in the record that the
benefits of orthogonal travel of the IR radiation and the
emitted secondary light were known in the art, we must assume
that the examiner is relying solely on the teachings and
suggestions of appellants’ disclosed and claimed invention.
As a consequence thereof, we agree with the appellants’
argument (Brief, pages 16 and 17) that the use of
“impermissible hindsight is not adequate motivation to arrive
at the present invention and thus the Examiner has improperly
combined the teachings of Seiden et al., Stanley et al. and
Billetdeaux et al."
In view of the foregoing, the obviousness rejection of
claims 1, 6, 12 and 13 is reversed.
The obviousness rejection of claims 5, 10, 14 and 15 is
reversed because the O sensing teachings of Liu and the
2
simultaneous removal of gas samples from a plurality of
bottles teachings of Gysi do not cure the noted shortcomings
in the teachings and suggestions of Seiden, Billetdeaux and
Stanley.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007