Ex parte BRYNING et al. - Page 9

          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-                

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007