Appeal 2007-0128
Reexamination Control 90/006,208
Patent 5,573,648
We affirm the Examiner’s prior art rejection of Atwood claims 1, 3-16, 75,
79 and 80.
II. ISSUE
The issue is whether Atwood has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
the claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. ' 103(a) (2004). The issue turns on the
following:
i. Whether the prior art teachings can be combined to establish that one
skilled in the art would have made Atwood=s claimed gas sensors;
and
ii. Whether Atwood=s alleged commercial success for Atwood=s
licensed gas sensors rebuts the Examiner=s prima facie case of
obviousness.
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
A. The Claims Under Reexamination
1) Claims 1, 3-16, 75, 79, and 80 were finally rejected by the Examiner and are
on appeal. (Examiner=s Answer, Paper 20, p. 2).
2) Claims 2, 17-74 and 76-78 were indicated as allowable by the Examiner.
(Id.).
3) Claim 1 is representative of the claims on appeal and reads as follows:
An electrochemical gas sensor for quantitative measurement of a gas
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013