Appeal No. 2000-1958
Application No. 08/854,620
The examiner recognized that in Robbat the specific compound
forming elements, oxygen, carbon and nitrogen, are not disclosed
but held that it would have been obvious to include such elements
as the compound forming elements since it was within the skill of
the artisan “to select a known material on the basis of its
suitability for the intended use” [answer-page 4].
The examiner also recognized that Robbat does not provide
for “chemical shifts.” However, the examiner turned to Meyer for
a recognition of identifying materials using characteristic
spectral line data including the storage of chemical shifts,
citing column 5, lines 45-60, and column 7, lines 30-35, of
Meyer. The examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to
include, in Robbat, the storage of chemical shifts “to more
clearly identify the chemicals present” [answer-page 5].
Appellant argues that Robbat is limited to the kind of
analysis such as ultraviolet/visible radiation and mass
spectroscopy where chemical shifts do not present any problem.
Appellant concludes that since Robbat relates to a field of
technology where there is no motivation to consider the effects
of chemical shifts, there would have been no reason for combining
any teaching of Meyer regarding chemical shifts with that of
Robbat.
-4–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007