Appeal No. 1997-3975
Application No. 08/395,376
We agree with the examiner that the invention as
broadly recited in claim 16 is suggested by the collective
teachings of Shofner and Duncan within the meaning of 35
U.S.C. § 103. The looped, not looped and multiply looped
entities of Shofner would yield different sensor outputs based
on size and shape as noted
in Shofner. When these different outputs are graphed based on
length as suggested in Shofner, the graph is an indication to
the
artisan of the length of looped, unlooped and multiply looped
entities. Therefore, we sustain the rejection as it applies
to claim 16.
In summary, we have not sustained the examiner’s
rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112. We have
sustained the examiner’s rejection of claims 9-11 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) and the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. We have not sustained the rejection of claims 13-15,
17 and 18 under
35 U.S.C. § 103. Therefore, the decision of the examiner
rejecting claims 9-11 and 13-18 is affirmed-in-part.
14
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007