Appeal No. 1996-1813
Application No. 08/117,453
would be motivated to remove bubbles from samples prior to
spectrophotometric analysis.
Applicants arguments regarding the rejection over the
combination of Maggard ‘785, Mark and Dawes, appearing on page
19 of the brief, will not be addressed because this rejection
has not been presented for our review.
Applicants filed a reply brief to address the addition
of the Inman reference in the statement of the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejections. Except for claim 8, applicants’ brief did not
previously address the separate patentability of claims 1-7
and 9-18 over the Maggard ‘785 reference. Thus, regarding the
Maggard ‘785 rejections, we will only address arguments
concerning the patentability of claims 1 and 8.
Applicants assert the Inman reference seeks to solve a
different problem from the preferred on-line (real time)
systems to which the present invention is most preferred.
Further, none of the cited references suggest using a
plurality of different samples sequentially injected to
calibrate the instrument over the range. (Reply Brief, page
5). First claim 1 is not limited to the scope of applicants
preferred embodiments. Second, Maggard ‘785 discloses the use
of two reference samples to calibrate the spectrophotometer.
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007