Appeal No. 1998-2459 Page 8 Application No. 08/566,340 ends. We do not agree with the examiner's assertion (answer, page 4) that the same portion of the length of the pipe is covered by liquid. We find that in light of Broerman's specific disclosure that both the end of the tube 28 and the end of the optical fibers 29 are tapered at an angle at the location where the test liquid passes by the end of tube 28, that the liquid does contact the smooth exterior surface along its length, as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, we find that the examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to claim 1. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 and dependent claims 2-4 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the teachings of Broerman is reversed. With regard to the rejection of claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Broerman and Parks, we find that Parks does not overcome the basic deficiency of Broerman. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed. Turning next to the rejection of claims 8, 9, and 11-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Broerman, Park,Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007