Appeal No. 2004-1137
Application No. 09/734506
The next rejection for our review is that of claims 1, 3, 10
and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Singer
in view of Gillard. In this instance, the examiner has
determined (answer, page 5) that Singer teaches a "sewage"
sampler including a vessel assembly having a tubular intake
vessel for conducting a withdrawn fluid sample (tube 33) and a
storage vessel (36) for storing the fluid sample. What the
examiner finds lacking in the disclosure of Singer with respect
to the sampler defined in appellant's claim 1 on appeal is any
teaching of cooling the withdrawn fluid and stored fluid sample.
However, to account for this difference, the examiner points to
the sewage sampler of Gillard and its teaching of cooling a fluid
sewage sample within sample chamber (13) to thereby maintain it
under refrigeration to prevent deterioration of the sample (page
1, col. 2, lines 38-43). From the combined teachings of the
above-noted applied patents, the examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
of appellant's invention to use a cooling coil in the sample
chamber of Singer because Gillard teaches cooling a sewage sample
container (similar that in Singer) by surrounding the sample
container with a cooling coil (41) provides refrigeration which
avoids putrefaction or deterioration of the sample.
1313
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007