Ex Parte Johnson - Page 2




              Appeal No. 2005-0644                                                                          2               
              Application No. 09/804,522                                                                                    


                    1.  An LED illumination source device for use in a flow particle detection device                      
              comprising:                                                                                                   
                     an LED for providing light at a selected wavelength; and                                               
                     an optical element for collecting nearly all of the light from the LED and                             
              concentrating the collected light at a selected volume within a flow sample stream.                           
                     The references relied on by the examiner are:                                                          
              Martin et al. (Martin)                      4,573,796                    Mar. 4, 1986                         
              Maekawa et al. (Maekawa)                    5,644,388                    July  1, 1997                        
              Ross et al. (Ross)                          5,877,863                    Mar. 2, 1999                         
                     Claims 1, 2, 6 through 8 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as                             
              being anticipated by Maekawa.                                                                                 
                     Claims 3, 4, 9 through 12 and 14 through 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.                             
              § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Maekawa in view of Martin.                                                
                     Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over                            
              Maekawa in view of Ross.                                                                                      
                     Reference is made to the brief and the answer for the respective positions of the                      
              appellant and the examiner.                                                                                   
                                                        OPINION                                                             
                     We have carefully considered the entire record before us, and we will reverse the                      
              anticipation rejection of claims 1, 2, 6 through 8 and 13, and reverse the obviousness                        
              rejections of claims 3 through 5, 9 through 12 and 14 through 20.                                             









Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007