Appeal No. 1997-2569
Application No. 08/469,578
Second, appellants argue that the teachings of Woodbridge do
not overcome the deficiencies of Gibbs and Lee since
Woodbridge uses vibration to mix a liquid which is fully
contained in the test strip. See Brief, p. 7.
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. It is of no
moment that the support disclosed in Lee is not “substantially
impervious to and non-reactive” with the sample deposited
thereon. The examiner relies on Lee to establish that it
would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the
art to mix the droplets of Gibbs using alternative agitation
means such as the vibratory agitator disclosed in Lee. See In
re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981) (the test for
obviousness is not what the individual references teach, but
what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art).
Furthermore, in view of the teachings in Gibbs that
contamination among samples is not desirable, one having an
ordinary level of skill in the art would have adjusted the
intensity of the vibratory agitator in Lee to prevent cross-
contamination.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007