Appeal No. 2000-0188
Application No. 08/900,720
103 as being unpatentable over Bobb in view of Harmer and Lekholm further in view of
Shaw.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 13, mailed Jun. 22, 1999) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 12, filed April 12, 1999) for the
appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we make the determinations which follow.
Appellants argue that the Bobb reference does not employ temperature in
determining the identity of a liquid using refractive index. (See brief at page 14.) We
agree with appellants. Appellants argue that the refractometer of Bobb can only determine
indices of refraction in the range of 1.33 to 1.62. (See brief at page 15 and Bobb at
column 3.) Appellants argue that it is doubtful that the refractometer of Bobb is capable of
determining the refractive index of commonly employed anaesthetics and
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007