Appeal No. 1996-1813
Application No. 08/117,453
to the system of calibrant standards of known
composition (see column 3, lines 20-35). Therefore,
the presence in the analysis system of Maggard of a
calibrant introduction means would have been
inherent as required for the disclosed method of use
or, in any event, obvious to one of ordinary skill
in order to enable the desired introduction for
analysis of calibration standards. It is noted that
any such calibrant introduction means would have
been fully capable of introducing a plurality of
equilibration standards in succession as well as
introducing a mixture of hydrocarbons.
Maggard (‘785) is [are] silent as to the
injection of calibration standards being automatic
and periodic.
However it is well known and conventional to
periodically calibrate measuring instruments in
order to ensure accurate results over time (see
Inman, Jr. et al. at column 2, lines 15-19 and 46-
52). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to perform the
disclosed calibration periodically as needed.
Examiner’s Answer, page 6, line 19 to page 7, line 16.
Applicants argue that the examiner has not established a
prima facie case of obviousness. Particularly, applicants2
argue that none of the cited references suggest the periodic
and automatic sampling from two or more hydrocarbon blends of
Applicants have failed to specifically point out the2
deficiency in the rejection of claims 1-8 and 16-18 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 over the Maggard ‘785 reference. It is noted
that applicants reply brief asserts that the reference does
not render obvious the present invention’s plurality of
reference samples sequentially injected to calibrate over a
range. Further, applicants assert the addition of the Inman
reference does not cure deficiency of Maggard ‘785. (Reply
Brief, page 7, lines 1-11).
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007