Appeal No. 1996-3262
Application No. 08/141,632
The Examiner18 does not give any patentable weight to the
claimed intended use of the apparatus as a flow sensor as "the
second surface of the diamond film is in contact with the fluid
which would have been inherently achieved when the device is used
as a sensor."
Turning again to claims 1-3, we find that in addition to the
preamble's recited use of the electric device "for monitoring a
fluid," the body of each of these claims provides further
limitations directed to the fluid. Claims 1 and 2 recite "said
second surface is in contact with the fluid." Claim 3 recites
"said diamond film has an exposed surface to the fluid to be
monitored." The preamble of claim 8 recites "An electric device
provided on a path for passing a fluid therethrough " (emphasis
added), and in the first subparagraph thereof requires "one
surface of said diamond film forming part of an inner wall of
said path" (emphasis added). As these elements of the claim are
not disclosed by Nakahata et al, this rejection is reversed.
C. Rejection of claims 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Bohrer et al
Appellants submit19 that Bohrer et al discloses a heater
18
18 Examiner's Answer, page 4, second last paragraph
19
19 Brief, page 15
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007