Ex parte NIX et al. - Page 7

          Appeal No. 1997-3142                                                        
          Application No. 08/323,660                                                  

          implementation of the method of Seiden et al.”  The examiner                
          is also of the opinion (Answer, page 6) that “it would have                 
          been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to mount the               
          sensors of Stanley et al. and Billetdeaux et al. in positions               
          in which they were least likely to interfere with each other                
          and to provide the sensors so that they had orthogonal paths                
          would be the geometrically optimum position given the optical               
          nature of both sensors.”                                                    
               In response, appellants argue (Brief, page 14) that:                   
               [N]one of Seiden et al., Billetdeaux et al. and                        
               Stanley et al. provide the necessary motivation for                    
               arriving at the present invention.  In fact, the                       
               Examiner has acknowledged that there is not a single                   
               reference or teaching in the art which would provide                   
               one of ordinary skill in the art with the incentive                    
               to make the particular modifications of the present                    
               invention, including the transmission of IR                            
               radiation and emitted secondary light which travel                     
               through the sample cell in substantially orthogonal                    
               directions to permit the substantially simultaneous                    
               measuring of an amount of IR radiation absorbed as                     
               an indication of the concentration of CO  gas in the                   
               gas sample and an amount of secondary light emitted                    
               as an indication of the concentration of O  gas in                     
               the gas sample.                                                        
          Appellants also argue (Brief, page 14) that “[i]t is                        
          Appellants who have discovered that if IR and emitted                       


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

Last modified: November 3, 2007