Appeal No. 1997-1669
Application No. 08/185,649
Figure 4 of Stone, when the vial (77) is in puncturing contact
with the needle (260), the vial is not in heat-conductive
relation with the platen, but is clearly entirely displaced
from the chamber of the platen.
In light of the foregoing we cannot sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claim 42, and claims 44-46 which
depend therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Stone in view of Otson, Chlosta ‘733, Smith and Lorch.
Next we turn to the examiner’s rejection of claims 13,
14, 17-19, 30-36 and 43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Stone in view of Otson, Chlosta ‘733, Smith
and Lorch as applied to claim 42 above, and further in view of
Fujitsuka and Natelson or Yamano. The examiner initially
relies (answer, pages 7-8) on the combination of Stone, Otson,
Chlosta ‘733, Smith and Lorch as applied to claim 42 as the
basis of the instant rejection. The examiner notes that Stone
does not teach agitating the vial while in the sample tray.
The examiner relies on Fujitsuka and Natelson or Yamano to
teach apparatus associated with liquid and gas chromatographs
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007