Appeal No. 1997-2954
Application No. 08/401,876
misplaced under the prevailing law. We are of the view that
the examiner has failed to provide any factual support to show
that the rotary platen, in the original claims, is a critical
element in the claims. In light of the foregoing, we will not
sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 22-45 under 35
U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Now we look to the examiner’s rejection of Claims 22-45
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Stone in view
of Otson, Chlosta, Lorch, Fujitsuka, and Natelson or Yamano.
The examiner relies on Stone (answer, page 4) to disclose
a liquid sampling device comprising a rotatable sample tray
(50, 60) having chambers with shoulders for retaining vials
and a stationary needle (260, 270) disposed above the tray
(50, 60). It is further urged that Stone provides a
vertically displaceable rod (200) which is brought into
engagement with sample vial (77) to push the vial into
engagement with the needle (260). The examiner notes that
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007