Appeal No. 1997-1734
Application No. 08/215,259
We have carefully reviewed the entire record, including
all of the arguments and evidence advanced by both the
examiner and the appellants in support of their respective
positions. This review leads us to conclude that the
examiner’s rejection is not well founded. Accordingly, we
reverse. The reasons for our determination follow.
The examiner states:
Frank shows a similar extraction device using
supercritical carbon dioxide.
The claims differ from Frank in some specific
details which are not specifically referred to by
Frank, but are suggested by Frank. For instance,
claims 7 recites a first and second transport means,
and dependent claims add a third transport means.
Frank shows chamber 210 actuated between two
positions(col.9, first and second paragraphs).
Frank adds(col.12, fourth paragraph) that an
automated apparatus can be provided for placing the
extraction containers in the extraction chamber and
for removing extraction containers from the chamber.
[Underscoring added; examiner’s answer, p. 3.]
The examiner then concludes:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art, at the time the invention was
made, to use a well known carousel for the first
transport means and to provide a piston or plunger
to push the sample into chamber 210(see the piston
in Holt if necessary). The third transport means
would involve the second positioning of chamber
210(referred to above) to provide the automatic
seals and to put the heater in place. At col.9,
line 8, Frank suggests thermal signals. Obviously
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007