Appeal No. 98-2792
Application 08/516,257
(i.e., a single) processing chamber. Note particularly,
Figures 1 through 3 of appellant’s application which clearly
show the capsule (4) with a single processing chamber (10).
Like appellant, we find no disclosure in Komives of a sensor
unit or system for measuring properties of an analyte that
includes a sensor capsule that is formed with a single (only
one) undivided processing chamber. Notwithstanding the
examiner’s comments regarding the light chamber (27) of
Komives being an undivided chamber, we note that this
reference clearly has a sensor capsule (defined by the probe
housing (5) and optical fiber (9)) which includes two
processing chambers (27) and (29), instead of a sensor capsule
having a single processing chamber as required in the claims
on appeal. For this reason, we will not sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4 through 9, 15 and 16
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Komives.
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007