Appeal No. 96-0852
Application 08/116,581
that there are several other recited elements of the claims on appeal which are also not found in
Lamazou. Most notably, Lamazou fails to teach or suggest 1) an analyzer case having an opening in the
lower surface thereof as in the claims on appeal; 2) a manifold formed so as to be fixedly fitted or
inserted into said opening, e.g., wherein said manifold provides the means for fixedly coupling the
constant temperature oven of the gas chromatographic system with a sample conditioner unit through
said opening in the analyzer case as in claim 1 on appeal; and 3) a cylindrical circuit housing protruding
horizontally from the analyzer case, with said circuit housing being joined to the analyzer case through “a
neck portion, having a predetermined diameter for preventing an influence due to heat conduction from
said constant temperature oven” as in the claims on appeal.
The examiner turns to Tinklepaugh for a chromatographic system wherein a heater (44) is
located in a heater block (42) that carries the system detector (Figs. 3 and 6), and wherein the
electronic control unit for the system is remotely located, with the wires from the components in the
heater block being routed through a support pipe (40) to the remote electronic control unit located
outside of the oven (Figs. 1 and 6). Claudy is relied upon for a teaching of nesting of the columns in a
compact chromatograph, i.e., preheater column (26b) and separation column (24a) as seen in Claudy’s
Figure 1.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007