Appeal No. 1999-2624 Page 3
Application No. 08/561,658
Claims 1-10 and 13-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Crawford in view of Fugoso.
Reference is made to the brief (Paper No. 10) and the
final rejection and answer (Papers No. 7 and 11, respectively)
for the respective positions of the appellant and the examiner
with regard to the merits of this rejection.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the3
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we cannot sustain
the examiner's rejection.
There is no dispute that the only difference between the
probe set of the claims on appeal and that of Crawford lies in
the joint between the proximal end of the probe of light wire
3While the wire diameter of 0.04 mm recited in claims 8 and 17 is
supported by original claims 8 and 17, we note that page 5 of the appellant's
specification discloses the wire diameter as about 0.4 mm. We leave this
inconsistency to be resolved by the examiner and the appellant in the event of
further prosecution before the examiner.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007