Appeal No. 95-4369
Application 08/117,242
claims 45 and 64, why Jowitt and Bowen would reasonably have
suggested remotely locating the laser from the probe.
In the context of claim 74, the feature "the step of
positioning the probe by remote control" refers to remotely
controlling the positioning of the probe, not remotely locating
the probe from the plasma source. Note that in the appellants’
specification, the probe position of the probe is controlled via
a robotic arm (spec. at page 9, lines 5-7). The appellants’
argument on page 21, lines 3-7, of the appeal brief is misplaced
in that it confuses remotely controlling the position of the
probe with remotely locating the probe from the plasma source.
The appellants have failed to demonstrate error in the examiner’s
reliance on Griffin to show positioning the probe by remote
control. We note further that Griffin’s probes are designed for
underground wells and the like, and it does not appear that
Griffin contemplates the presence of any human operator at the
precise physical location of the probe underground.
Because claim 74 depends from claim 73, it includes the
feature of "collecting the sample in a filter mounted in the
probe." The examiner relied on Brewer, Jr. which shows
collection of sample particles on a filter. See page 375 of
Brewer, Jr., lines 22-25. The appellants argue (Br. at 19, lines
15
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007