Appeal No. 1997-1734
Application No. 08/215,259
question or how these claim elements would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art over the applied prior
art. Holt and Gilford, which the examiner characterizes as
being cumulative (examiner’s answer, page 3), have apparently
been cited to show the obviousness of using a piston
(examiner’s answer, pages 3-4), but these prior art references
do not remedy the deficiencies of Frank with respect to the
claim elements concerning the sample containers.
For these reasons, we reverse the examiner’s rejection of
claims 7 through 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
the combined teachings of Frank, Holt, and Gilford.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
JOHN D. SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
CHARLES F. WARREN ) APPEALS
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007