Appeal No. 1998-2581
Application No. 08/472,965
examiner, and claims 4, 7, 12 and 15, indicated as allowable by
the examiner (Final Rejection dated Aug. 9, 1996, Paper No. 7,
page 4). Claims 4, 7, 9, 10, 12 and 15 form no part of this
appeal (Brief, page 1).
According to appellant, the invention is directed to a
device for removing or replacing solvent in a liquid sample
containing macromolecules, wherein the improvement includes the
provision of an auxiliary reservoir in gas-tight or liquid-tight
relationship to the concentration chamber during the operation
of the device resulting in hydrostatic pressure in the
concentration chamber which advantageously accelerates the
concentration procedure (Brief, pages 3-6). A copy of
illustrative independent claims 1 and 2 is attached as an
Appendix to this decision.
The examiner relies upon Zipilivan et al. (Zipilivan), U.S.
Patent No. 3,817,379, issued June 18, 1974, as support for the
rejections on appeal. Accordingly, claims 1-3, 6 and 14 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Zipilivan
(Supplemental Answer, page 3). Claims 3, 5, 8, 11, 13 and 16
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007