Ex parte LACOUNT - Page 7

                Appeal No. 97-1107                                                                                     Page 7                   
                Application No. 08/047,512                                                                                                      

                         The examiner, recognizing that Barnes does not specifically teach a converging-diverging cell,                         

                adds Rossiter and Lew to the rejection as further evidence of known cell and beam shapes.  The                                  

                examiner cites Rossiter for the following teaching at column 3, lines 46-51:                                                    

                         The shape of the interior tubular portion should be so arranged that its cross-sectional area                          
                         at any point follows the optical beam of the particular spectrometer been [sic; being] used.                           
                         For example, the interior body portion could have a cross-sectional area which converges                               
                         from both ends to an intermediate throat.                                                                              

                Rossiter clearly teaches a cell with a converging-diverging shape.                                                              

                         Appellant’s main dispute is that Rossiter is directed to a metal cell of rectangular shape, not a                      

                uniformly thick cell that is a body of revolution.  While that is true, the examiner points out that Barnes                     

                teaches both rectangular and cylindrical cells and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized                       

                that the teaching of shaping the cell to conform to the IR beam could be transferred from one type of                           

                cell to the other (Answer, pages 10 and 11).  The key fact here is that Barnes teaches contouring the                           

                cell to match the IR beam with respect to both the rectangular cast aluminum Beam Conforming                                    

                Demountable Cell and the glass Pyrex® Ultra Micro cell.  That fact shows that Barnes recognized using                           

                the concept of a cell shape that conforms to the IR beam in various types of cells.                                             

                         Lew further shows a range of beam configurations for use in IR spectroscopy including beams                            

                that converge and then diverge.  See, for instance, the IR beams depicted in Figures 3 and 6 of Lew.                            

                Appellant argues that Lew is directed to a totally different cell and principle of operation from that of                       

                Barnes and Rossiter.  That is of little consequence in this particular combination of references because                        

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007