Appeal No. 96-0251
Application 07/874,697
Accordingly, we affirm the rejections of these claims over
Lucisano alone or in view of Perley.3
Rejection of 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
Appellants’ claim 7 recites that the polarization of the
working electrode and reference electrodes is periodically
changed to drive electrodeposited material from the working
electrode back to the reference electrode.
Lucisano teaches that the silver/silver chloride
reference electrode had partly dissolved, that the working
electrode had acquired a layer of silver, and that “[i]n cases
of gradual sensor failure the original signal could be
restored by appropriate polarization treatment or by
replatinization of the working electrode” (page 739, left
column, second full paragraph). This teaching of use of a
polarization treatment to restore the signal after the
transfer of silver from the reference electrode to the working
electrode would have fairly suggested, to one of ordinary
skill in the art, periodically changing the polarization of
3 A discussion of Perley is not necessary to our decision.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007