Appeal No. 97-1107 Page 5
Application No. 08/047,512
separately patentable. Appellant has not explained how the different limitations render the claimed
subject matter unobvious over the combinations of prior art applied by the examiner. See CFR §
1.192(c)(7) and (c)(8)(1995). The examiner groups claim 27 separately. For purposes of this appeal,
we limit our consideration of the issues raised by the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as they pertain
to the groups of claims as set forth by the examiner.
Obviousness of Claims 10, 15-21, 23, 25, and 26
In the first claim grouping, claim 26 is the broadest claim. We focus on this claim for purposes
of discussion. Claim 26 is rejected as obvious over Barnes in combination with Rossiter and optionally
Lew. As pointed out by the examiner in the rejection (Answer, page 4), Barnes teaches several
different kinds of gas analysis cells. All these cells have windows on opposite axial ends of the cell with
an inlet near one end and an outlet near the other end as required by claim 26. However, the cells vary
in body shape and wall material. The different cell types taught by Barnes include:
1. Standard Demountable Gas Cell - cylindrical glass (Pyrex®) cell.
2. Large Beam Demountable Gas Cell - similar to the standard demountable cell except it has
a larger aperture for use with a spectrophotometer of small f-number.
3. Beam Conforming Gas Cells - rectangular cast aluminum cells contoured to match the beam
geometry of dispersive IR beams.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007