Appeal No. 2003-1920
Application No. 09/538,455
We find that Upchurch also teaches that it is conventional to
employ a check valve with a disposable filter for regulating the
flow of a liquid in liquid chromatography. See column 1, line 5
to column 2, line 30 and the abstract. Thus, we concur with the
examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
led to place filters in the claimed locations, e.g., proximate a
sample point (between a sample point and a stream switching
portion) and/or in a pressure regulation device (check valve) as
taught by Upchurch, with a reasonable expectation of successfully
reducing contaminants in a stream switching system used in liquid
chromatography, such as the one described in Higdon. This is
especially true in this case since one of ordinary skill in the
art desiring to reduce the contaminant problem in a stream
switching system as taught by Higdon would have readily observed
such problem in the claimed locations and would have placed
therefore filters to prevent or minimize such problem. See In re
Ludwig, 353 F.2d 241, 147 USPQ 420 (CCPA 1965).
CONCLUSION
In summary:
1) The examiner’s Section 102(e) rejection of claims 1 through 8,
20 through 24 and 26 through 30 is reversed;
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007