Appeal No. 2004-1887
Application No. 09/430,469
Finally, claims 1-4, 15 and 21-25 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Hikosaka.
We refer to the brief filed August 30, 2002 and to the answer
mailed March 4, 2004 for an exposition of the respective positions
advocated by the Appellant and by the Examiner concerning the above
noted rejections.
Opinion
Based on the record before us, it is quite clear that none of
the Examiner’s § 102 rejections can be sustained for the reasons
set forth by the Appellant in his brief. We add the following
comments for emphasis.
The Section 102 rejection based on Sittler
The Examiner’s finding that independent claims 1 and 19 are
anticipated by Sittler is based on her belief that Sittler’s
controller 84 transmits a digital signal (indicative of the gas
species being analyzed) to the timing and control circuit 86 for
timing and actuation of valves 30, 32, 34 and 44-50 (e.g., see
pages 7-9 of the answer). As explained by the Appellant in the
brief, however, the aforementioned digital signal is transmitted to
display/storage circuit 92 rather than timing and control circuit
86. While we recognize that this timing and control circuit is
provided with an output from controller 84, the Sittler reference
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007