Appeal No. 1996-2959 Application 08/399,853 channels4 and the scanning section, not between the flow axes themselves. Claim 4 further limits the relationship between the channels in a manner which is completely consistent with these angle limitations. Thus, the examiner’s concern that claim 4 is an improper dependent claim is unfounded. Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth paragraph, rejection of claim 4. II. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections As framed by the appellants, the dispositive issue with respect to the § 103 rejections of independent claims 1, 9 and 17 is whether either May or Stark teaches or would have suggested a device meeting the limitations in these claims pertaining to the relationship between the channels and the scanning section. Independent claim 1 recites a detecting device comprising, inter alia, (1) channels each having a flow axis and (2) a scanning device having a scanning section, with “at least two of said channels being arranged to define an angle, not equal to zero, formed between said flow axis and said scanning section, each of said channels being located in a position with a channel portion covered by said scanning section.” Similarly, independent claim 9 recites a detecting device wherein “at least a portion of each 4 See n.1, supra. 4Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007