Appeal No. 1996-3675
Application No. 08/259,933
All of the examiner’s stated rejections rely on the
combination of Watanabe and Monter. Specifically, the
examiner’s position is stated as follows:
Watanabe discloses a conventional Ag-AgCl
reference electrode 38, whose surrounding
electrolyte 42 is saturated with AgCl to ensure a
constant concentration. Electrode 38 is a wire and
tube 10 is seen to be an elongated surrounding
covering. Element 32 serves as a liquid junction.
See col. 3, l. 13-29. Applicant’s claim differs
from Watanabe by calling for a plurality of openings
leading to the space between the electrode and the
covering and the covering serving as the liquid
junction [sic].
Monter discloses a reference electrode 12
surrounded by an elongated covering 14, which has a
plurality of openings 16 serving as the liquid
junction. See col. 3, lines 13-48. It would be
obvious for Watanabe to replace its liquid junction
32 with a plurality of openings because the
substitution of art-recognized equivalents is within
the skill of the art.
If Watanabe is construed as not to disclose a
wire electrode surrounded by an elongate[d]
covering, claim 16 differs further in that respect.
Monter clearly shows an elongated electrode
surrounded by an elongate[d] covering. It would be
obvious for Watanabe to adopt this electroded [sic]
configuration, because this configuration allows the
electrode to fit into narrow spaces and to cover
extended surfaces. [Underscoring added; examiner’s
answer, pp. 3-4.]
The appellants, on the other hand, argue as follows:
One skilled in the art, therefore, would not be
motivated to modify the reference electrode of
Watanabe to include multiple openings as the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007