Appeal No. 1997-3328
Application No. 08/226,605
how to provide a geometrically defined sample in a
electrophoresis device as described in claim 19. The claimed
method uses a sample composition having different
electrophoretic mobilities and claim 19 requires the electric
field applied across the supply and drain to be held for a
minimum period based on the component with the slowest
electrophoretic mobility. We do not find the prior art to be
suggestive of this solution.
We reject the examiner's contention that maintaining the
electric field for the minimum time is simply an obvious art
recognized result-effective variable. The cited and applied
prior art does not teach that the electric field across the
supply and drain, in the method of operating the device as
specified in claim 19, is a known variable. Also, the
examiner does not explain why changing, or varying, the dwell
time would have been obvious to either Verheggen or Harrison.
First, Harrison's device is so dissimilar that if the dwell
time were extended it is not apparent that the process of
claim 19 (providing a geometrically defined sample) would
result. Secondly, Verheggen points to the disadvantages of
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007