Appeal No. 2003-0730
Application No. 09/323,650
abstract, and this wavelength band is considered to correspond to
the term 'selective energy emission band'" (page 4 of Answer,
second paragraph). We note that appellants have not refuted the
rationale of the examiner, which is reasonable on its face.
Appellants have not explained how the blackbody cavity of Dils
does not qualify as an emitter having a selective energy emission
band. Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner's § 102
rejection.
We will also sustain the examiner's § 103 rejections of
claim 11 over Dils in view of Stone, of claim 12 over Dils in
views of Tregay, and claims 14 and 15 over Dils in view of
Readhead. Appellants' arguments with respect to these rejections
are based on their argument relative to the § 102 rejection over
Dils. No separate arguments have been advanced regarding the
features recited in claims 11, 12, 14 and 15.
We will not sustain the examiner's § 103 rejections of
claims 2, 3 and 6 over Dils in view of Rose, and of claims 4, 5
and 7-9 over Dils in view of Milstein. In our view, the examiner
has not established that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have found it obvious to substitute the materials recited in
claims 2-9 for the material of Dils in making an optical
temperature sensor. The examiner relies upon the Rose disclosure
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007