Appeal No. 2002-1191
Application No. 09/101,175
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the Examiner and
Appellants concerning the above-noted rejection, we refer to the Answer and the Briefs.
DISCUSSION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and applied prior art, including
all of the arguments advanced by both the Examiner and Appellants in support of their
respective positions. This review leads us to conclude that the Examiner’s § 103 rejections
are well founded. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed.
Cir. 1992); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223 USPQ 785, 787-88 (Fed. Cir.
1984). We affirm.
The Examiner has rejected claims 21 to 24, 27 to 29, 32, 33, 35, 37 and 40 to 44 as
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Makino and
Furutani. (Answer, pp. 3-5).
We select claim 44 as representative of the claims rejected by the Examiner.6 The
subject matter of claim 44 is directed to an electrochemical sensor. The electrochemical
sensor is produced by providing the sampled gas to the gas chamber of the electrochemical
pump cell via the gas inlet opening, and completely covering the gas inlet opening with a
6 The subject matter of claim 44 is the broadest of the rejected claims. Our selection of
this claim is appropriate because the Appellants have indicated that the subject matter of claim 44
is patentable for the reasons discussed in connection with claims 21 and 35. (Brief, p. 8).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007