Appeal No. 1997-1734
Application No. 08/215,259
prior art and the claims; (3) the level of ordinary skill in
the art at the time of invention; and (4) objective evidence
of nonobviousness. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17-18, 148 USPQ at
467.
As a preliminary matter, we note that the examiner does
not explain the scope and content of the prior art to any
reasonable degree of specificity. In addition, we find that
the examiner does not identify all of the differences between
the prior art and the claimed subject matter. Instead, the
examiner states that “[t]he claims differ from Frank in some
specific details...” In our opinion, the examiner’s analysis
in this case falls short of the standards set forth in Graham.
Turning to the merits, Frank describes a sample
preparation device which extracts sample components from
complex matrices using supercritical carbon dioxide as the
principal extracting solvent and presents the resulting
extract in a user-chosen sample collection vessel (autosampler
vial, bulk vessel, cuvette, etc.) with the autosampler vial
being directly compatible with automatic injection systems of
other analytical instruments (column 4, lines 48-56). In one
embodiment, Frank teaches an apparatus comprising a gas
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007