Appeal No. 96-0251
Application 07/874,697
Sensor”, 59 Analytical Chemistry 736-39, March 1, 1987
(Lucisano).
THE REJECTIONS
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
follows: claims 10, 11/10, 12, 13, 14/10, 14/12 and 14/13 over
Lucisano alone or in view of Perley; claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 11/1,
11/2, 11/7, 11/8, 14/1, 14/2, 14/7 and 14/8 over Lucisano in
view of Hersch, Dahms or Sabins; claims 3-6 over Lucisano in
view of Sabins; claims 9, 11/9 and 14/9 over Lucisano in view
of Krebs.2
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments
advanced by appellants and the examiner and agree with the
examiner that the methods recited in appellants’ claims 1, 2-
8, 10, 11/1, 11/2, 11/7, 11/8, 11/10, 12, 13, 14/1, 14/2,
14/7, 14/8, 14/10, 14/12 and 14/13 would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of appellants’
invention over the applied prior art. Accordingly, we affirm
the aforementioned rejections of these claims. However, the
2 The rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 112 have
been withdrawn (answer, page 12).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007