Appeal No. 1996-1813
Application No. 08/117,453
11. The examiner has not directed us to evidence which would
render the subject matter of claims 9 and 11 prima facie
obvious.
Rejections over the Maggard‘745 reference
Claims 1-8 and 16-18 have been rejected as unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Maggard ‘745 in combination with
Inman and Mark. Claims 9-15 have been rejected as
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Maggard ‘745 in
combination with Inman, Mark and Dawes. For the reasons
stated below we reverse.
Maggard ‘745 discloses a device and process for the use
of near infrared absorbance of the methylene band to measure
octane by near infrared spectroscopy. (Column 1, lines 33-
37). The reference differs from claims 1 and 11 in that it
does not describe the use of multiple calibration standards or
an automated system for injecting samples. To overcome the
deficiencies of Maggard ‘745, the examiner relies on the Mark
and Inman references. Mark teaches NIR analyzers require
periodic calibration by the introduction and analysis of
verification samples (paragraph bridging pages 57-58).
However, Mark does not describe the use of multiple
calibration standards. Inman describes an automatic fluid
19
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007