Appeal No. 1997-1734
Application No. 08/215,259
the sample container flow connections and sample
container lid could be designed in the same
horizontal plane, so that downward movement of the
chamber would seal all three openings. Well known
automatic clamps could be provided for locking the
parts in place. [Examiner’s answer, pp. 3-4.]
The appellants, on the other hand, summarize their
arguments as follows:
The principal reference, Frank, et al., does not
disclose the nature of his sample vessels,
collection system or programming system but does
indicate they exist. On the other hand, all of the
claims in this application recite sealable or
closeable sample cartridges with inlet and outlet
passageways and means for heating them in the
pressure chamber. It would not be obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art to construct
these features which are not disclosed in Frank, et
al nor in the two references combined with it nor is
there any reason why a person of ordinary skill in
the art would combine them along the line of the
invention to obtain the benefits achieved with the
claimed invention. Similarly, there is no teaching
of a heated variable restrictor or of the rotary
carousels for transport paths or of any mechanism
for locking the sample cartridges in place. None of
these features would have been obvious to a person
of ordinary skill in the art from the cited
references. [Appeal brief, pp. 12-13.]
Specifically, the appellants contend:
The Examiner has given no reason why a person of
ordinary skill in the art would modify the thimbles
disclosed in Frank, et al. to provide openable or
sealable cartridges with their separate inlet and
outlet passageways for use in an automatic
supercritical extraction system. The problems of
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007