Appeal No. 93-3623 Page 11
Application 07/629,690
24. We find Leaback's problem to be sufficiently related to
the problem facing Appellant (microvolume sequencing of peptides)
to be relevant to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
25. Leaback states that a wettable material for the
reaction chamber is preferable (2:8-12), but also teaches that
the chamber may be integrally formed with the inlet tube,
suggesting that they may be formed of the same material. (2:45-
48.) The outlet tube may be the same material as the inlet or
reactor tubes. (2:36-39.)
26. We find that Leaback, taken as a whole, would have
reasonably suggested an all-PTFE construction.
27. Leaback teaches that proper mixing and flow (and hence
avoidance of unswept volumes) is, in part, a function of reactor
diameter. (2:17-25.) It discloses a reactor with an inner
diameter of approximately 1.6 mm. The inlet tube has half that
inner diameter. (2:26-30.) The outlet tube may be coaxial with
the reactor and the same size as the inlet tube. (2:33-39.)
28. We find that Leaback discloses the same structural and
size relationship that Appellant is claiming, but the materials
of the inlet and reactor tubes are different and their joint is
secured with an adhesive. (6:14-27; Fig. 1.)
29. Leaback teaches the importance of fluid-tight seals in
microvolume reactions. (2:48-53.)
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007