Appeal No. 1997-3328
Application No. 08/226,605
(specification, page 9). The preferred embodiment being
subsequently described with respect to Fig. 4.
The advantages described include "the leakage or diffusion of
sample components is considerably decreased ... the noise of
the detected signal is reduced ... [and] the sensitivity of
the analytic system, that is the limit of detection, is
increased" (specification, page 9).
The examiner's rejection of claim 20 is based on
Verheggen's description of a basic electrophoretic device and
Harrison's teaching of electrokinetically introducing the
sample "by applying a voltage (pt electrodes) between the
separation channel and supply channel" (examiner's office
action mailed May 16, 1995, Paper No. 3, page 5).5 The
examiner also notes "Harrison also teaches that manipulation
of channel geometry is possible to control where the applied
potential drops. Kindly refer to Fig. 1; 1928, Results and
Discussion, the two paragraphs" and concludes that "[i]t would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
5 The final rejection (Paper No. 6) rejects then claim 12 (replaced in Paper
No. 7 in favor of claim 20) by reference to "the office action mailed May 16,
1995" for an explanation of the rejection.
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007