Appeal No. 1996-3504 Application No. 08/265,648 optical devices embodied in the claimed measuring means. The examiner has not supplied any rationale as to why the Bauman reference would have rendered the claimed measuring means prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Since the examiner has not carried his burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, we reverse this rejection as well. Further, the examiner has rejected claims 5 and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Leif and Schrader. For the reasons set forth at pages 6 through 9 of the Brief and pages 2 through 4 of the Reply Brief, we agree with appellants that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to remove an orifice in the device of Leif to provide “a conduit means having substantially uniform surface ... extending the entire length through the lens means for passage of liquid sample therethrough.” To modify the device of Leif as proposed by the examiner, i.e., remove an orifice, is to destroy the invention on which Leif is based. See Ex parte Hartmann, 186 9Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007