Appeal No. 95-1950
Application No. 08/061,928
We agree with the appellant that Mukogawa contains no
teaching or suggestion of terminating the fluid signal in
response to a selected change in the measured parameter as
recited in clause D or for transferring the particles to an
optical element for image analysis as recited in clause E of
the independent claims under rejection. Concerning the clause
D feature, the examiner urges that the "prescribed time in
Mukogawa. . . is viewed as the presently recited measured
parameter" (answer, page 6). This view is clearly erroneous
since the here claimed "measured parameter" is explicitly
defined in clause C as "responsive to fluid flow", and
Mukogawa's time parameter is plainly not so responsive. As
for the clause E feature, we cannot agree with the examiner
that it would have been obvious to combine the prior art
embodiment described in column 1 of Mukogawa with patentee's
figure 1 embodiment. In our opinion, the appellant is correct
in arguing that these embodiments are alternative, and thus
not combinable, mechanisms for determining water purity.
In light of the foregoing, we cannot sustain the
examiner's section 103 rejection of claims 1, 3 and 8 as being
unpatentable over Mukogawa. Moreover, we also cannot sustain
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007