Appeal No. 2005-0086
Application No. 09/969,265
electrode and the counterelectrode. Thus, there is but one
measuring step; not two as the examiner insinuates. Therefore,
no incongruity arises from the language used in the claim. That
the claim may be of broader scope when the measurement is
alternatively performed between the first electrode and the
reference electrode does not make the claim indefinite.
With regard to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), we
note that all of appellants’ claims are limited to a
configuration or method where the concentration of a component of
a gas mixture is determined by “measuring” an electric current.
As pointed out by appellants, Kato I involves determination of
gas concentration by measuring voltage, not current. For
instance, see Kato I at col. 5, ll. 42-44, read in conjunction
with col. 24, ll. 44-56. Current is converted into a voltage
prior to quantifying the gas concentration. As put by appellants
in their reply brief (page 4), there is a critical distinction
between “detection” and “measurement.” Detection merely
identifies the presence of a particular characteristic or entity.
Measurement, however, involves quantifying that characteristic or
entity.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007