Appeal No. 93-3369
Application 07/344,179
The analysis of obviousness has been established since the
decision in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459
(1966). This analysis requires acknowledgment of the differences
between the prior art and the claims at issue. The differences
from the prior art in this instance begin with the requirement in
the claims of a column and sleeve type assembly each of which
column and sleeve contains a solid phase support, with the column
fitting into the sleeve such that the column discharge point is
in proximity to the solid support in the sleeve. None of the
references provide all of these elements. Substantially
modifying the devices of the references is not suggested by the
references themselves, nor have sufficient reasons been presented
to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have made
such changes to the prior art devices.
With regard to the lack of a teaching of a solid support in
the sleeve, the Examiner states that the interior of the various
tubes referred to in Diamond, Diekmann and Graas is analogous to
a solid phase support in a sleeve, because one can detect visible
color in both. The capacity to detect visible color inside a
tube does not constitute a reason why one would modify a tube by
inserting a solid phase support into the tube. The mere fact
that they can operate to give a similar result does not establish
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007