Appeal No. 2001-0352
Application 08/872,097
We agree. The Examiner failed to apply the teachings of any individual
reference to any individual claim. Thus, these rejections are not readily susceptible to
response by the Appellants or to meaningful review by this merits panel. Further, the
Gleave reference at least in part has been misread vis-à-vis the claimed subject matter.
We point to the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-9, 23-29, and 47 as
unpatentable over Gleave et al. in view of Panetz as informative. Although the
Examiner did not find it necessary to reproduce the rejection in whole, we do so below.
Gleave et al. disclose a reaction tool substantially as claimed. The system
comprises a reaction vessel 101, a reaction vessel support 23, an injection port
106 and an evacuation port 109, each includes a pressure seal 116, and injection
and evacuation fittings 161 and 164 for matingly engaging the injection and
evacuation ports (figures 4, 6, and 10). Gleave et al fail to recite a plurality of
injection and evacuation ports supported by top and bottom support plates.
Panetz et al. teach an apparatus for automatically separating a compound from
liquid specimens including a carousel support plate 70 for supporting a plurality
of injection ports 75 and 105 and fitting 72 and 107 for engaging with a reaction
vessel 50. Such an arrangement would provide a smaller, compact sample
preparation apparatus which can prepare samples for further analysis on either a
batch or continuous basis quicker and with greater reliability (figures 1, 2, 13, 14,
column 2, lines 4-19, and column 3, lines 50-58).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time the invention was made to have provided the apparatus of Gleave et al.
with a carousel support plate for supporting a plurality of injection ports, as taught
by Panetz et al., in order to provide a smaller, compact sample preparation
apparatus which can prepare samples for further analysis on either a batch or
continuous basis quicker and with greater reliability.
With respect to the bottom carousel fitting plate, one of ordinary skill in the
art would have found it obvious to provide an additional support plate in the
modified system of Gleave et al., for supporting the evacuation fittings, since it
has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device
involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co.v. Bemis Co., 193
USPQ 8.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007