Ex parte BENTON - Page 2




          Appeal No. 1998-2465                                                        
          Application No. 08/599,192                                                  


          source toward a photodetector, but when the fluid does contact              
          the prism, no internal reflection takes place, and the optical              
          signal does not reach the photodetector.  Claim 16 is                       
          illustrative of the claimed invention, and it reads as                      
          follows:                                                                    
          16. A fluid overfill detection probe comprising:                            
               a light source which emits an optical signal having a                  
          center wavelength in the infrared range;                                    
               a photodetector which detects the optical signal; and                  
               a prism into which the optical signal is coupled by the                
          light source, the prism material comprising a fluoropolymer                 
          and providing internal reflection of the optical signal from                
          the light source toward the photodetector when a surface of                 
          the prism at which said reflection occurs is not contacted by               
          a fluid being detected, the prism not providing said internal               
          reflection when said prism surface is contacted by said fluid.              
               The prior art references of record relied upon by the                  
          examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:                              
          Beauvais et al. (Beauvais)    4,840,137                Jun. 20,             
          1989                                                                        
          Tregay                        4,998,022                Mar. 05,             
          1991                                                                        
               Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 13 through 19, 21 through 23, and 28                
          stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable                  
          over Tregay in view of Beauvais.                                            


                                          2                                           





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007