Appeal No. 96-0852
Application 08/116,581
F.2d 703, 705, 223 USPQ 1257, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ("In determining whether a case of prima
facie obviousness exists, it is necessary to ascertain whether the prior art teachings would appear to be
sufficient to one of ordinary skill in the art to suggest making the claimed substitution or other
modification.")
In this case, Lamazou discloses a chromatography installation that addresses similar problems
to those addressed by appellants, i.e., 1) heat losses in the sample tubing connecting elements of the
installation and 2) the large size and complexity of prior art installations (translation, page 3). As seen
best in Figure 1, the installation of Lamazou includes a fixed block (13) that is made of a homogeneous
metallic material and which includes recesses and channels that constitute, at least in part, the means for
fluid introduction, the calibration means, the means for introduction of the vector or carrier fluid, the
detector, and the means for the actuation of at least one column (translation, pages 3-4). The
installation further includes chromatographic columns (7, 8) and a toric oven (3) which encloses the
chromatographic columns and encircles the block (13).
While the examiner recognizes (answer, page 4) that Lamazou fails to teach or suggest a) a
heater in the valve (i.e., in block 13), b) the arrangement of the chromatographic columns in a nested
manner, and c) the electronic circuitry and indicator means as set forth in the claims on appeal, we note
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007