Appeal No. 1998-2459 Page 8
Application No. 08/566,340
ends. We do not agree with the examiner's assertion (answer,
page 4) that the same portion of the length of the pipe is
covered by liquid. We find that in light of Broerman's
specific disclosure that both the end of the tube 28 and the
end of the optical fibers 29 are tapered at an angle at the
location where the test liquid passes by the end of tube 28,
that the liquid does contact the smooth exterior surface along
its length, as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, we find that
the examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness with respect to claim 1. Accordingly, the
rejection of claim 1 and dependent claims 2-4 and 7 under 35
U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the teachings of Broerman
is reversed.
With regard to the rejection of claims 5 and 6 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Broerman and Parks,
we find that Parks does not overcome the basic deficiency of
Broerman. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 5 and 6 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
Turning next to the rejection of claims 8, 9, and 11-13
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Broerman, Park,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007