Appeal No. 1996-1556
Application No. 08/154,135
i.e, using an amperometric sensor. Id. However, relying on
the teaching of Madou regarding the current mode, or
alternatively based on his official notice regarding the
current mode, the examiner concludes that “[i]t would be
obvious for Madou to use electrolytes (c) or d(d)[Pb -Bi -
0.75 0.25
F and Ce -Ca -F ] in a gas sensor in the current mode”.2.25 0.95 0.05 2.95
Id. The examiner also relies on the disclosure of Lilly or
Topol to show that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to operate a solid electrolyte gas
sensor in the current mode. See Answer, page 4. The examiner
relies on the disclosure of Oswin to show that it would have
been obvious to use “a plurality of sensors and voltage
biasing means for different analytes” in the method described
in Madou as required by dependent claim 9. Id.
Appellant does not dispute that Madou is qualified as
“prior art” under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b). See Brief, pages 6 and
7. Appellant, however, argues that he cannot be barred from
swearing back of such prior art under 37 CFR § 1.131 because
35 U.S.C.
§ 103 dictates that obviousness must be considered at the time
the invention was made (conceived). See Brief, pages 7 and 8.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007