Appeal No. 1996-1556
Application No. 08/154,135
Lilly Jr. et al. (Lilly) 3,719,564 Mar.
6, 1973
Topol et al. (Topol) 3,821,090 Jun. 28,
1974
Madou et al. (Madou) 4,851,303 Jul. 25,
1989
Oswin et al. (Oswin) Re. 31,916 Jun. 18, 1985
The appealed claims stand rejected as follows:
(1) Claims 1, 3 through 8, 10, 12, 15 through 17 and 21
through 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Madou;
(2) Claims 1, 3 through 8, 10, 12, 15 through 17 and 21
through 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Madou in
view of Lilly or Topol; and
(3) Claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Madou,
with or without Lilly or Topol, in view of Oswin.
We reverse.
As evidence of obviousness of the claimed subject matter
under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner primarily relies on Madou.
The examiner takes the position that Madou essentially
describes the claimed method. See Answer, page 3. According
to the examiner, the only difference between the method
described in Madou and the claimed method is Madou’s
preference for operating a solid electrolyte gas sensor in the
potentiometric mode, rather than the claimed current mode,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007