Appeal No. 1998-2395
Application No. 08/657,979
In addition, the examiner reasons that it would have been
obvious to extend the housing into the flow "to collect only a
true sample by avoiding the sampling difficulty of collecting
material at 'zero velocity' near the conduit wall." Yet,
Skállen's figure shows the piston housing ending just inside the
pipe wall. Therefore, Skállen does not illustrate the examiner's
motivation for modifying Green. Consequently, the examiner has
failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, and we
cannot sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 8
and 10 through 12.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 8
and 10 through 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007