Appeal No. 96-1802 Page 10
Application No. 08/060,922
(column 4, lines 48-50) that the probe 1 (i.e., the gas inlet)
and the filter 2 may be heated by separate heating coils or by
a common heating coil.
After the scope and content of the prior art are
determined, the differences between the prior art and the
claims at issue are to be ascertained. Graham v. John Deere
Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966).
Based on our analysis and review of the admitted prior
art and claims 2-4 and 12, it is our opinion that the only
difference is the limitation that a single heater extends
substantially the length of the filter element and the
measured gas line.
In applying the above-noted test for obviousness, we
reach the conclusion that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made
to have modified the two separate heating systems of the
admitted prior art to be a single heating system especially in
view of Hölzl's teaching that it was known in the art to use
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007