Ex Parte Draaijer - Page 2

               Appeal 2007-0615                                                                           
               Application 10/204,304                                                                     

                                           INTRODUCTION                                                   
                     Appellant claims an optical sensor for measuring oxygen in a medium                  
               (claim 1).  The optical sensor has a fluoridated silicone polymer in which an              
               organometallic complex is embedded (Specification 1 and 2).  Appellant                     
               indicates that the fluoridated silicone polymer stabilizes the dye (i.e., the              
               organometallic complex) to reduce photobleaching and thermal degradation                   
               of the optical sensor (Specification 4-6).                                                 
                     Claim 1 is illustrative:                                                             
                     1. An optical sensor for measuring oxygen in a medium, provided                      
               with a substrate in which an organometallic complex is embedded,                           
               characterized in that the substrate consists of a fluoridated silicone polymer.            
                     The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence                
               of unpatentability:                                                                        
               Macur   US 3,839,178  Oct. 1, 1974                                                         
               Jolson   US 5,338,429  Aug. 16, 1994                                                       
               Joseph R. Lakowicz, Principles of Fluorescence Spectroscopy, 2nd Ed.,                      
               536-538, (1999).                                                                           
                     The rejection as presented by the Examiner is as follows:                            
                  1. Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over                 
                     Lakowicz in view of Jolson or Macur.                                                 
                     Rather than reiterate the respective positions advocated by the                      
               Appellant and by the Examiner concerning this rejection, we refer to the                   
               Brief and the Reply Brief, and to the Answer respectively for a complete                   
               exposition thereof.                                                                        




                                                    2                                                     

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013