Ex parte NIX et al. - Page 8

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

          secondary light travel in orthogonal directions, interference               
          is avoided.”                                                                
               In the absence of any evidence in the record that the                  
          benefits of orthogonal travel of the IR radiation and the                   
          emitted secondary light were known in the art, we must assume               
          that the examiner is relying solely on the teachings and                    
          suggestions of appellants’ disclosed and claimed invention.                 
          As a consequence thereof, we agree with the appellants’                     
          argument (Brief, pages 16 and 17) that the use of                           
          “impermissible hindsight is not adequate motivation to arrive               
          at the present invention and thus the Examiner has improperly               
          combined the teachings of Seiden et al., Stanley et al. and                 
          Billetdeaux et al."                                                         
               In view of the foregoing, the obviousness rejection of                 
          claims 1, 6, 12 and 13 is reversed.                                         
               The obviousness rejection of claims 5, 10, 14 and 15 is                
          reversed because the O  sensing teachings of Liu and the                    
          simultaneous removal of gas samples from a plurality of                     
          bottles teachings of Gysi do not cure the noted shortcomings                
          in the teachings and suggestions of Seiden, Billetdeaux and                 

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

Last modified: November 3, 2007