Appeal No. 1997-3328
Application No. 08/226,605
combine the method of Verheggen and Harrison because
electrokinetic injection is conventional technique in the
art of electrophoresis. Furthermore, both references deal
with control of sample introduction and electrophoretic
separation. With respect to width, depth, distance between
channels, and angles, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to determine through routine
experimentation optimum apparatus limitations in order to
ensure apparatus optimization" (examiner's office action
mailed May 16, 1995, Paper No. 3, pages 5-6).
In response, appellants refer to the dimensions of the
devices described in Verheggen ("the capillary tube which has
a greater diameter (0.55mm) than that of the two feeders,
which each have a diameter of 0.44mm") and Harrison ("[t]he
dimensions for the separating channel are listed as 1mm wide x
10µm deep versus 30µm wide x 10µm deep for both the sample and
mobile phase channels") and point out that "present claim 20
specifically requires the resistance to flow of the supply and
drain channels to be about 5% lower..." whereas in both
Verheggen and Harrison it is higher such that "even if
Harrison was properly combined with Verheggen, and if some
12
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007