Appeal No. 96-1808
Application 08/204,119
wherein the liquid media handling means is movable relative to
both the vessel and the shaft or paddle.
The examiner, therefore, has not carried his burden of
establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the
apparatus recited in appellants’ claims 1-8, 10-33 and 45-48.
Consequently, we reverse the rejection of these claims under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claims 34-37
Appellants’ claim 34, and claims 35-37 which depend
therefrom, require that the head means includes a temperature
sensor for detecting the temperature of the liquid in the
vessel,
and that the temperature sensor is mounted relative to the
vessel and paddle therein.
The examiner relies upon Schneider ‘657 for a teaching of
the use of a thermostat in a dissolution testing apparatus
(answer, pages 6-7). The examiner, however, does not explain
why the applied references would have fairly suggested, to one
of ordinary skill in the art, mounting the temperature sensor
-6-6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007