Appeal No. 1996-1877
Application No. 08/149,716
disposed in a heated movable platen, and yet subsequent to the
introduction by Tekmar Company, their major competitors each
introduced or offered similar features on their static
headspace samplers. Thus, we conclude that the evidence of
secondary considerations provided by appellants outweighs the
evidence relied upon by the examiner.
Accordingly, we cannot sustain 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 rejection of claims 24-28
and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Chlosta in view of Natelson or Yamano and further in view of
Greaves, the examiner’s rejection of claims 24-28 and 34
under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Chlosta in view of Natelson
or Yamano and further in view of Harris, or the examiner’s
rejection of Claims 29-33, 35 and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Chlosta in view of Natelson or Yamano
and further in view of Fujitsuka and Jakubowski.
16
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007