Appeal No. 1997-1669
Application No. 08/185,649
from chambers while the racks are on the carousel of Stone.
In considering the disparate teachings of the various applied
references, we are of the opinion that the examiner has
clearly employed improper hindsight to come to the conclusion
that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the
teachings of Stone, Otson, Chlosta ‘733, Smith and Lorch to
create the particular transport device defined in claims 42
and 44-46 on appeal.
Moreover, after reviewing the examiner’s proposed
combination of Stone, Otson, Chlosta ‘733, Smith and Lorch
applied to claims 42 and 44-46, we note that this combination
fails to teach or suggest a second displaceable rod to urge
the vial upward along a chamber of the platen at the second
location to bring the septum of the vial in puncturing contact
with a needle “while maintaining the vial in heat-conductive
relation with the platen,” as set forth in appellants’
independent claim 42. The examiner relies on Stone for a
teaching of a displaceable rod (200) to urge the vial (77)
upward and to bring the septum (78) of the vial (77) in
puncturing contact with a needle (260). However, as shown in
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007