Appeal No. 2001-0246
Application No. 08/921,103
Appellants contrast the claimed liquid junction solution
about a porous constraint with the prior art device and assert
that the disclosure of Europe is focused on the structure of the
constrained-diffusion junction or salt bridge that is
permanently installed in a flow cell (brief, pages 13 & 14).
Appellants argue that Europe’s reference to fluid chamber 21 for
removal of the reference fluid is limited to elimination of air
bubbles without teaching or suggesting the flow of the reference
fluid at any other time (brief, pages 15 & 16). Appellants
further argue that Hofmeier’s teaching of circulating the liquid
junction relative to the sample solution pertains to a free-
diffusion junction and cannot be combined with the slat bridge
of Europe (brief, page 18 and reply brief, pages 2-4).
The Examiner responds to Appellants’ arguments by pointing
out that the fact that a constraint junction can operate without
a flowing junction solution does not mean that flowing the
reference fluid can not or should not be employed in a
constraint junction (answer, page 6). The Examiner adds that,
in fact, a flowing junction solution enhances the purity of the
solution in a constraint junction as it does in a free junction
(id.). Additionally, the Examiner argues that Europe does teach
that the junction element is exposed to sample flow on one side
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007