Appeal No. 1997-3328
Application No. 08/226,605
BACKGROUND
The appellants' invention relates to a method and a
device for controlled sample introduction in microcolumn
separation techniques (specification, p. 1). A copy of the
claims under appeal is set forth in the appendix to the
appellants' brief.2
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Verheggen et al. (Verheggen), “Simple Sampling Device for
Capillary Isotachophoresis and Capillary Zone
Electrophoresis”, Journal of Chromatography, Vol. 452, pp.
615-622 (1988).
Harrison et al. (Harrison), “Capillary Electrophoresis and
Sample Injection Systems Integrated on a Planar Glass Chip”,
Analytical Chemistry, Vol. 64, No. 17, pp. 1926-1932 (1992).
Claims 2-11 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Verheggen in view of Harrison.
Claims 13-18 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Verheggen in view of Harrison.3
2 In the appendix to the brief the second word "sampling" has been
omitted from each of claims 14-16.
3 The rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
has been overcome by appellants' amendment filed February 1, 1996 (Paper No.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007