Appeal No. 1997-2954
Application No. 08/401,876
Implicit in this rejection is the examiner’s view that
the above noted modifications of Stone would have resulted in
a transport device which corresponds to the subject matter
defined in claims 22-45 on appeal.
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings
of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18
USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). In this case, we are
in agreement with appellants’ position (brief, pages 11-29)
that the combined teachings of Stone, Otson, Chlosta, Lorch,
Fujitsuka, and Natelson or Yamano simply fail to disclose or
otherwise provide an adequate suggestion for heating the racks
(50) while on the carousel of Stone or heating the carousel
that carries the racks, while also providing a vial mixing
device of the type specified in the claims on appeal; nor any
fair suggestion of using a mechanism for inserting or removing
the vials from chambers through upper open ends into and from
the vial holder chambers while the racks are on the carousel
of Stone. We are of the opinion that the examiner has used
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007