Appeal No. 95-4369
Application 08/117,242
why one with ordinary skill in the art, in light of Brewer, Jr.’s
teaching of collecting sample particles on a filter, would not
recognize that the samples for analysis by the plasma source can
be collected by a filter. Note that appellants’ sample particles
are furnished through ablation by laser and Brewer, Jr.’s
particles are furnished by use of high voltage sparks. The
appellants have presented no reasons why this difference would
cause sample collection by filter to be useable in one but not
the other. We do not find that to be so.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim
74 over Jowitt, Bowen, Brewer, Jr. and Griffin.
Conclusion
The rejection of claims 45, 49-51, 55, 64, 66, 68, 69 and 84
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Jowitt and Bowen
is reversed.
The rejection of claims 46, 48, 54, 56, 65, 71-72 and 81
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Jowitt, Bowen
and Griffin is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 52 and 67 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Jowitt, Bowen and Griffin is reversed.
The rejection of claims 53 and 70 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Jowitt, Bowen and Kim is reversed.
17
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007