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
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007