Appeal No. 96-0760
Application No. 08/051,210
inter alia, nitrogen-containing and aromatic volatile
contaminants, Bruening evidences that it was known in the art
to employ the claimed chemiluminescence analysis to detect
nitrogen-containing contaminants, and Thomas discloses the use
of appellants' means for fluorescent analysis to determine the
presence of aromatic hydrocarbon contaminants. Consequently,
we are persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have found it obvious to employ the known detection systems of
Bruening and Thomas to test separate sample streams for the
presence of nitrogen-containing compounds and aromatic
hydrocarbon compounds, respectively, in one combined system.
We note that appellants have not presented any objective
evidence which establishes that the claimed system, comprising
a combination of known analytical systems, produces any
unexpected result.
Appellants set forth the following argument at page 6 of
the principal brief:
The Examiner also takes the position that a second
sample cloud egresses from the container sidewalls
and the bottom thereof and that this egression of
volatiles is caused by the original injection of
fluid which purged the beverage volatiles from the
container. It is respectfully submitted that this
is a distorted interpretation of the operation of
the Myers method and apparatus. It is simply
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007