Appeal No. 96-1802 Page 8
Application No. 08/060,922
Claims 2-4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the admitted prior art in view of
Hölzl.2
The admitted prior art (as set forth on page 2, lines 8-
17, of the appellant's specification) comprises a gas sampling
tube for flue-gas analysis having a gas inlet constructed and
adapted to receive a flue-gas sample; an elongate filter
element downstream of the gas inlet and in fluid communication
with the gas inlet for normally receiving gas from the gas
inlet; a measured gas line downstream of the filter element
and in fluid communication with the filter element for
2Claim 8 has not been included in this rejection since
the applied prior art does not suggest the single heater being
of tubular configuration. The examiner should ensure that
this claimed feature is illustrated in the drawings as
required by 37 CFR § 1.83 since the current figure illustrates
a single heater being of a coiled configuration. Claims 9 and
10 have not been included in this rejection since normally,
when substantial confusion exists as to the interpretation of
a claim and no reasonably definite meaning can be ascribed to
the terms in a claim, a determination as to patentability
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is not made. See In re Steele, 305 F.2d
859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962) and In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382,
165 USPQ 494 (CCPA 1970).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007