Appeal No. 2003-0533
Application No. 09/511,183
through 50) the chambers are relatively small as compared to
those utilized in prior art tubing conveyed pressure actuated
samplers.
When we set aside in our minds that which appellants have
taught us in the present application and focus upon the
collective teachings of Michaels and White, it at once becomes
apparent to us that the reference teachings would not have been
suggestive of the now claimed sample module, apparatus, and
method to one having ordinary skill in the art. At best,
Michaels and White may be viewed as teaching the alternatives of
using all larger or all relatively smaller sample vessels. From
our perspective, only by relying upon impermissible hindsight and
appellants’ own teaching would one having ordinary skill have
been able to derive the claimed invention from the teachings of
Michaels and White. The examiner has also applied the respective
patents to Dave, Ringgenberg, Hrametz, and Massie to address
features apart from the smaller sizing of a validation chamber
relative to a sample chamber. A review of the latter documents
reveals to us that they do not overcome the discussed deficiency
of the Michaels and White patents. It is for the reasons given
above that the rejections before us cannot be sustained.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007