Appeal No. 96-2307
Application No. 08/293,630
(although he possibly does) mix the “zero gas” (col. 9,
line 26) (i.e. nitrogen) with a “carbon dioxide and
sulphur dioxide” (col. 9, line 27) blend to produce the
“nitrogen, carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide” (col. 9,
line 27) mixture. It would have been obvious to mix a
blend (Rankine’s “carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide”
mixture; or Kimura’s “blended gas comprising a known
mixture of constituent gases” referred to above) with a
zero gas because Barcellona et al. teach (Abstract;
Figs. 1, 3-6) mixing zero gas T with a second gas
z
source T to provide a plurality of different
s
proportions of calibration gases in a “sequential”
(Abstract, line 4 from last) manner to calibrate
“analyzers for exhaust gases from internal combustion
engines” (col. 1, lines 8-9).
Appellant argues (Reply Brief, pages 4 and 5) that:
In essence, the Examiner apparently wants to ignore
Barcellona and the admitted prior art which provide
separate span gases, and instead substitute the concept
of a blended span gas drawn from a non-analogous
process [Rankine]. Then the Examiner apparently wants
to reinstate a portion of Barcellona . . . to create a
division of the blended span gas as required by claims
1-5 and 6-10, and sequential samples of the blended
span gas and divisions thereof as required by claims 1-
5. However, nothing in the art would lead one of
ordinary skill to draw upon a non-analogous process in
that manner. Moreover, nothing in the art would lead
one of ordinary skill to select portions of differing
processes in the manner apparently adopted by the
Examiner; such could be done only with the hindsight
benefit of appellant’s disclosure.
We agree. In the absence of impermissible hindsight, the
examiner’s line of reasoning fails to convince us that the
skilled artisan would have arrived at appellant’s claimed
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007