Appeal No. 1997-1669
Application No. 08/185,649
the lifting member of Lorch and incorporate a sample holding
area such as taught by Chlosta ‘733 or Lorch into the Stone
device to allow sampling of the vials to occur at the same
time as loading of the vials.
Implicit in this rejection is the examiner’s view that
the above noted modifications of Stone would have resulted in
a transport device which corresponds to the subject matter set
forth in appellants’ claims 42 and 44-46.
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings
of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18
USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). In this case, we are
in agreement with appellants (brief, pages 8-13) that the
combined teachings of Stone, Otson, Chlosta ‘733, Smith and
Lorch simply fail to disclose or provide any suggestion for
heating the racks (50) while on the carousel of Stone or
heating the carousel that carries the racks; nor any
suggestion of using a rod for inserting or removing the vials
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007