Appeal No. 1998-2395
Application No. 08/657,979
chamber extending into said process line and in communication
with said process line, piston means reciprocable within said
chamber, a sample container contiguous with and in communication
with said chamber, said sample container having a fixed volume,
said piston means having a first position within said chamber and
in said process line whereby said piston means blocks
communication with said sample container and isolates said sample
container from said process line, and a second position wherein
said piston means is retracted to allow communication between
said process line and said sample container through said chamber.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Green 2,598,535 May 27, 1952
Skállen et al. (Skállen) 4,635,470 Jan. 13, 1987
Claims 1 through 8 and 10 through 12 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Green in view of
Skállen.
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 11,
mailed January 16, 1998) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejection, and to appellants' Brief (Paper No. 10,
filed October 17, 1997) for appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior
art references, and the respective positions articulated by
appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 8 and
10 through 12.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007