Appeal No. 95-3208
Application 08/067,307
the determination of obviousness, the court must answer whether
one of ordinary skill in the art who sets out to solve the
problem, and who had before him in his workshop the prior art,
would have been reasonably expected to use the solution that is
claimed by the Appellants.
Appellants argue on page 7 of the brief that neither
Fulwyler, Kamimoto nor Colombo teaches or suggests a spatial
filter which includes a detector extender. We note that
Appellants’ claim 2 recites that the "spatial filter includes a
detector extender located between the means for exposing the
particles to the beam of light and the light detection means,
wherein the detector extender blocks ambient light and is of
sufficient length to deter light which was scattered by the
particles from reaching the detector." Appellants also argue on
pages 7 and 8 of the brief that the references fail to teach or
suggest using a fiber optic cable as a spatial filter as recited
in Appellants' claim 6.
On page 5 of the answer, the Examiner argues the Appellants'
statement on pages 8-10 as evidence that the optical fiber may be
substituted by a pinhole for reducing the collection angle.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007