Appeal No. 1997-3328
Application No. 08/226,605
using electromigration technique for the sample and refers to
alternatives rather than ways to improve the electromigration
technique. Finally, although the examiner has urged that the
combination of these two prior art teachings would have been
obvious, we do not agree that it would have been obvious at
the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary
skill in the art to use the step of injecting a sample as
provided by Harrison in the device of Verheggen and then to
further modify the process by providing a minimum injection
time based upon the component of the sample with the slowest
electrophoretic mobility. Harrison reviews numerous factors
affecting flow injection, but does not even remotely suggest
consideration of the necessary factors of distance, mobility
of the slowest component and field strength across the source
and drain channels
to arrive at a way to provide a geometrically defined sample.
Accordingly, the decision of the examiner to reject claim
19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed. As noted above, we have
grouped claims 2-11 and 19 as standing or falling together.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007