Appeal No. 95-4369
Application 08/117,242
For the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claims 45, 49-
51, 55, 64, 66, 68, 69 and 84 over Jowitt and Bowen cannot be
sustained.
The rejection of claims 46, 48, 52, 54, 56, 65,
67, 71-72 and 81 over Jowitt, Bowen, and Griffin
The appellants argue that Griffin fails to overcome the
above-noted deficiencies of the combination of Jowitt and Bowen.
We disagree.
The appellants acknowledge (Br. at 13) that Griffin
discloses a plasma source located on or within a probe. In
Griffin, the spectrometer analyzing the emissions from the plasma
source is remotely located and connected to the plasma source by
an optical cable or light guide (Figure 2; column 2, lines 55-56;
column 3, lines 10-16 and 53-60). The appellants argue (Br. at
14, lines 9-11): "Griffin reference does not provide a suggestion
or motivation for separating the plasma source from a detector in
a system in which the probe is remote from the plasma source."
The argument is misplaced because it confines a reading of the
reference to the particular environment or problem with which the
reference is concerned and fails to appreciate the full scope of
the technical teachings therein as would be appreciated by one
with ordinary skill in the art.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007