Appeal No. 1996-3504
Application No. 08/265,648
a conduit means of substantially uniform cross-sectional
dimension disposed within said lens means for fluid flow of a
fluid sample therethrough, and extending transversely to an
optical axis of said lens means through a focal region of said
lens means, said apparatus being arranged and constructed such
that said lens means focuses light rays that emanate from
within said conduit means said lens means focussing said light
rays by refraction.
As evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies on the
following prior art:
Leif 4,348,107 Sep.
7, 1982
Bauman et al. (Bauman) 4,425,438 Jan. 10,
1984
Schrader 4,714,345 Dec. 22,
1987
The appealed claims stand rejected as follows:
(1) Claims 1 through 3 and 32 through 34 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by the disclosure of Bauman;
(2) Claims 4 and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over the disclosure of Bauman; and
(3) Claims 5 and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over the combined disclosures of Lief and Schrader.
We reverse each of the foregoing rejections. Our reasons
for this determination follow.
The initial inquiry into determining the propriety of the
examiner’s prior art rejections is to correctly construe the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007