Appeal No. 2006-1787
Application No. 09/746,361
wall 32 is shown to have a non-uniform thickness about
sample passageway 38 which increases the usable width W
of the interrogation rays 42, and thereby increases the
dwell time of any scanned interrogation beam, as well
the duty fraction of the scan across the capillary.
Each ray 48 represents a beam position as the
interrogation beam traverses the capillary. In a
similar fashion, a large interrogation beam can be
used--a beam as relatively wide as dimension W can
couple energy into the core for this `enhanced duty
fraction` capillary. First portion 40 of body wall 32
also works to increase the collectable angular subtense
of energy originating within sample passageway 38 and
traveling outward through body wall 32.
We note that Appellants’ claim 1 requires that the interior
surface of the body wall be in direct contact3 with the material
being analyzed. However, Appellants’ specification merely
requires that the material being analyzed be contained within the
sample passageway defined by the interior surface of the
capillary body wall.
Now, the question before us is what Gilby would have taught
to one of ordinary skill in the art? To answer this question, we
find the following facts:
At column 3, line 54- column 4, line 51, Gilby states the
following:
As illustrated in a first embodiment depicted by FIG.
2(a), a first section of the lens is provided in the
form of a hyper-hemisphere 100. The hyper-hemisphere
100 is generally made of fused silica in order to have
3 In any further prosecution in this application, the Examiner should consider
rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112, 1st paragraph since the original
disclosure does not appear to provide adequate support for the limitation of
the interior surface of the capillary body wall being in direct contact with
the sample material.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007