Appeal No. 1997-1738
Application No. 08/255,040
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants’ specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
At the outset, we note that independent claim 11 requires
"a supercritical fluid chromatograph for receiving the sample
in an input stream and for producing an effluent stream" and
"a variable orifice restrictor for receiving a second portion
of the effluent stream and for independently controlling the
pressure and flow rate of the input stream".
With respect to the primary reference, appellants urge
two grounds for reversal, that "Saxena lacks any disclosure or
suggestion of a supercritical fluid chromatograph" (brief,
page 5) and that Saxena lacks an effluent stream variable
valve for input stream control (brief, page 5 and reply brief,
page 4).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007