Appeal No. 2003-0730
Application No. 09/323,650
Appellants have not set forth separate groupings of the
claims under the appropriate heading at page 4 of the Brief.
Accordingly, the groups of claims separately rejected by the
examiner stand or fall together.
Upon thorough review of the opposing positions advanced by
appellants and the examiner, it is our judgment that the
examiner's rejection of claims 1, 10, 13, 16 and 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 102 over Dils is well-founded. Like appellants, Dils
describes an optical temperature sensor comprising an emitter
having a selective energy emission band, i.e., blackbody cavity
12. Appellants contend that the claimed "selective emitter is
the antithesis of a blackbody" (page 6 of Brief, second
paragraph). Appellants further submit that "[t]he selective
emitter does not emit energy at a wavelength that is a function
of the emitter's temperature" (id.). However, as explained by
the examiner, appellants' arguments are not germane to the
claimed subject matter. Appealed claim 1 does not define a
"selective emitter" but, rather, "an emitter having a selective
energy emission band." As noted by the examiner, the emitter of
the optical temperature sensor disclosed by Dils "emits radiation
in the wavelength band of 0.3 µm to 1.0 µm for temperature
measurement in the range of 500°-2400°C, as stated in the
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007