Appeal 2006-3201
Application 10/689,951
combination with or as a replacement for the manometer in
Sillat’s cryogenic fluid line.
Thus, the examiner has not established a prima facie case
of obviousness of the inventions claimed in the appellants’
claims 3 and 4.
Claim 5
Claim 5 depends from claim 4 and requires that the active
component is a light emitting diode. As discussed above, the
examiner has not established that McCullough would have fairly
suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, using a light
emitting diode as an active component in Sillat’s method.
Also, the examiner does not rely upon McCullough for any
disclosure that remedies the above-discussed deficiency in
Sillat and Maric as to claim 4 from which claim 5 depends.
The examiner, therefore, has not established a prima facie
case of obviousness of the invention claimed in the appellants’
claim 5.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1 and 6-11, 13 and 14 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Sillat is affirmed as to claims 1 and
6-11 and reversed as to claims 13 and 14. The rejections under
35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 2 and 12 over Sillat in view of
McCulloch, claims 3 and 4 over Sillat in view of Maric, and
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013