Appeal No. 96-0760
Application No. 08/051,210
the former to detect nitrogen-containing compounds and the
latter for detecting aromatic hydrocarbons.
Appellants submit at page 5 of the principal brief that
appealed claims 1, 2, 4 and 5 may be grouped together whereas
claim 3 should be separately considered on its own merits.
Accordingly, appealed claims 1, 2, 4 and 5 stand or fall
together.
Appealed claims 1 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Myers in view of Bruening,
Tsuji and Thomas. Claims 2-4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over the stated combination of
references in further view of Tanaka.
We have carefully considered the respective positions
advanced by appellants and the examiner. In so doing, we find
ourselves in complete agreement with the examiner that the
claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art in view of the applied prior art.
Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner's rejections for the
reasons set forth in the Answer, which we incorporate herein,
and we add the following primarily for emphasis.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007