Ex parte UFFENHEIMER et al. - Page 2




          Appeal No. 95-1860                                                           
          Application 07/988,074                                                       


          only maintains the rejection of claims 2, 7, 9, 11 and 19 in the             
          Examiner's answer.                                                           
               The invention relates to an apparatus and method for                    
          integrated sampling from both closed and open sample liquid                  
          containers through use of the same sample liquid analysis system             
          sampling probe.                                                              
               The independent claim 2 is reproduced as follows:                       
               2. In sample liquid container support apparatus for use                 
               in a sampler, the improvements comprising, said support                 
               apparatus comrising, a plurality of sample liquid                       
               container mounting means each of which is operable to                   
               mount either a closed sample liquid container or an                     
               open sample liquid container, and means on said support                 
               apparatus for operatively connecting said support                       
               apparatus to a sampler for use in said sampler.                         
               The Examiner relies on the following references:                        
               Jones               3,897,216            Jul. 29, 1975                  
               Bradley et al.      4,478,095            Oct. 23, 1984                  
               Claims 2, 7, 9 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102              
          as being anticipated by Jones or in the alternative under 35                 
          U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Jones.  Claims 2, 7, 9               
          and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated             
          by Bradley or in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being              
          unpatentable over Bradley.                                                   




                                           2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007