Appeal No. 1996-2959
Application 08/399,853
finding no cure in the Dailey case which has little, if any,
pertinence to the issues of obviousness presented in this appeal.
Hence, as applied by the examiner, neither May nor Stark
establishes a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the
subject matter recited in independent claims 1, 9 and 17.
Therefore, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claims 1, 9 and 17, and dependent claims 2 through
8, 10 through 13, 15 and 16, as being unpatentable over either
May or Stark.5
5 Upon return of the application to the technology center,
the examiner should reassess the patentability of the appealed
claims in light of May’s teachings regarding the configuration of
the channels and the simultaneous measurement of plural channels
by an opto-electronic scanning device (see May, for example, at
column 2, lines 14 through 18 and 29 through 33; column 3, lines
13 through 24; and column 5, lines 18 through 23 and 40 through
50).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007