Appeal No. 96-2608
Application 08/068,498
assertions of hindsight reconstruction to be unpersuasive.
Moreover, we note that appellants have not in any way
specifically addressed the examiner’s stated position
concerning the obviousness of making the insert (4) of
Stallmann from a light transmissive plastic material so as to
allow visual observation of the sample containers (6) while in
the adapter (4).
To summarize our decision, we note that the examiner's
rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, 8 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, has not been sustained; but that the
examiner's rejection of appealed claims 1 and 2 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) relying on Stallmann has been sustained, as
has the examiner’s rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The decision of the examiner is, accordingly, affirmed-
in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007