Appeal No. 1996-1877
Application No. 08/149,716
v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 297 n.24,
227 USPQ 657, 667 n.24 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). Therefore, "[w]hen
determining the patentability of a claimed invention which
combines two known elements, ‘the question is whether there is
something in the prior art as a whole to suggest the
desirability, and thus the obviousness, of making the
combination.'" See In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1311-12, 24
USPQ2d 1040, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (quoting Lindemann
Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d
1452, 1462, 221 USPQ 481, 488 (Fed. Cir. 1984)).
With this as our background, we turn to the examiner’s
rejection of Claims 24-28, 34, 36 and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Chlosta in view of Natelson or
Yamano and further in view of Fujitsuka. The examiner relies
on Chlosta (answer, pages 3-4) to teach a basic method of
preparing a volatile sample including introducing a sample
vial (36) into a chamber (48) of a heated platen (46) for
transporting the vial to a location for removal of at least a
portion of the volatile sample from the headspace of the vial
for gas chromatographic analysis, heating the vial while the
vial is being transported in the platen, and introducing a
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007