Ex parte LACKIE - Page 3

          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,             
          Schrader                      4,714,345                Dec. 22,             
               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                

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007