Appeal No. 2002-0230
Application No. 09/136,070
OPINION3
Upon careful review of the respective positions advanced by Appellants and
the Examiner, we find ourselves in agreement with Appellants’ position in that the
Examiner has failed to carry the burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed.
Cir. 1992); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223 USPQ 785, 787-88 (Fed. Cir.
1984). Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner's rejection. We will limit our
discussion to claim 1, the sole independent claim.
Rokugawa describes a chemical analyzing apparatus incorporating a reagent
supply mechanism. The apparatus includes two reagent distribution mechanisms (30)
and (40) each has a rotary table 64 driven by drive motor (62). Secured to each rotary
table (64) are a plurality of reagent distributors (68) for distributing different reagents.
(Col. 4, ll. 9-11; Fig. 6). Each reagent distributor (68) includes reagent phial (70)
containing reagent 66 and pump (72) for withdrawing reagent (66) from the reagent
phial (70). (Col. 4, ll. 11-14; Fig. 4). Pump (72) has check valve (76) secured to the
wall of reagent phial (70), cylindrical member (78) secured to and extending upright
from check valve (76) and nozzle (32) secured to and extending downward from
3 In rendering this decision, we have considered Appellants arguments presented in the Brief, filed
March 5, 2001, and Reply Brief, filed July 23, 2001.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007