Appeal No. 1997-0915
Application 08/369,853
the main apparatus because the sensors are connected by leads.
Appellants argue that Policastro describes the apparatus
as self-contained and Sasaki describes the apparatus as a
single unit, which teaches away from such a pod (Br10-12).
The fact that Policastro describes an "apparatus which is
portable, self-contained and microprocessor controlled"
(emphasis added) (col. 1, lines 10-11) does not teach away
from the claimed subject matter because Appellants' apparatus
could be similarly broadly described. Policastro teaches a
sensor including a processing device that is connected to the
main apparatus with a sensor lead, and therefore teaches a
sensor apparatus that is not co-located with the main
apparatus.
We do not accept the Examiner's reasoning that "it has
broadly [been] held by the courts that merely making elements
separable is obvious" (FR6) because this seems to apply a
per se rule and there are no per se rules of obviousness.
Moreover, we agree with Appellants that the data acquisition
pod limitations involve more than making elements separable.
However, the rejection is supported by the references.
- 10 -
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007