Appeal No. 1996-3504
Application No. 08/265,648
USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984). As argued by appellants
(Brief, pages 3-5, and Reply Brief, 1 and 2), however, the
examiner has not established that the Bauman reference
discloses the claimed measuring means. Nowhere does the
Bauman reference describe the specific structural arrangement
embodied by the claimed means for measuring an amount of
radiation emanating from within the conduit. Accordingly, we
cannot sustain the rejection of claims 1 through 3 and 32
through 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
The examiner has also rejected claims 4 and 36 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the disclosure of Bauman. To
establish obviousness under Section 103, there must be some
teaching, suggestion or incentive from the Bauman reference
itself and/or the knowledge of ordinary skill in the art to
arrive at the claimed subject matter. See Pro-Mold & Tool Co.
v. Great Lakes Plastics, Inc., 75 F.3d 1568, 1573, 37 USPQ2d
1626, 1630 (Fed. Cir. 1996); ACS Hospital Systems, Inc. v.
Montefiore Hospital, 732 F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933
(Fed. Cir. 1984). As indicated supra, however, the Bauman
reference does not disclose the specific arrangement of
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007