Appeal No. 1997-1861
Application No. 08/412,235
skill in the art would have recognized that the
technique would improve the detection because of
its selectivity for lead as shown by Fearey et al.
[Id.; pages 5-6.]
Our review of the references relied upon by the examiner
leads us to the determination that the examiner’s rejection is
founded on an inadequate evidentiary basis to establish the
obviousness of the claimed process within the meaning of
35 U.S.C. § 103. For example, not withstanding the examiner’s
opinion (answer, page 7), Schmidt does not specifically
suggest that the use of their laser microprobe-mass-analyzer
for measuring lead in blood would be more sensitive than the
laser-excited flame atomic-fluorescence spectrometry method of
Omenetto as alleged by the examiner. Indeed, Schmidt does not
disclose the analysis of lead in blood by their laser
microprobe-mass-analyzer or compare such an analysis with a
blood lead determination according to the method of Omenetto.
While Schmidt (page 623) does generally refer to atomic
absorption spectrometry as a technique that existed prior to
their work that was useful for routine quantitative analysis
with limitations they attempt to circumvent, such a general
discussion is hardly a teaching or suggestion regarding the
Page 8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007