Appeal No. 2001-0352
Application 08/872,097
USPQ2d 1315, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Interconnect Planning Corp. v. Feil, 774 F.2d
1132, 1143, 227 USPQ 543, 551 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the rejections of record, we believe the stated reason why one would have
found it obvious to modify the specific apparatus of Gleave based upon the disclosure of
Panetz may be subject to question. Modifying Gleave with Panetz 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” (Final
Rejection, Page 3, lines 5-6) is questionable, as Gleave is primarily directed to a single
elution of an analyte from a sample.
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 through 9, 17
through 29, 35 through 40, and 47 through 65, is vacated. This application is remanded
to the Examiner for action consistent with the views expressed in this opinion.
Future Proceedings
We state that we are not authorizing a Supplemental Examiner’s Answer under
37 C.F.R. §1.193(b)(1).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007