Appeal No. 98-2792
Application 08/516,257
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have
given careful consideration to appellant’s specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we have made the
determinations which follow.
Looking first at the examiner's rejection of claims
15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Schultz, we share the examiner’s view that Schultz discloses
(Figures 5a, 5b) a sensor unit (26) for sensing properties of
a sample analyte, which unit is structured to be used with a
remote light source (36) and remote detection means (41) both
of which are disposed in noncontacting position with respect
to the sensor unit. The sensor unit itself includes a capsule
(30, 34) closed by an optical fiber (32) inserted in one end
thereof. The capsule defines a single undivided processing
chamber (28), a
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007