Appeal No. 2004-1137
Application No. 09/734506
as taught in Gillard, it is clear to us that the sample chamber
of Singer would likewise include two cooling volumes, one within
the coils directly surrounding the storage container (36) in a
lower portion of the chamber, and a second in the space above the
storage container through which the conduit (33) passes. Given
that the entirety of the sample chamber (13) of Singer would thus
be refrigerated by cooling coils to prevent deterioration of the
sample, it follows that both the tube (33) carrying sample fluid
to the sample storage container and the storage container (36)
itself will be cooled by air present in each of the respective
volumes noted above.
In light of the foregoing, we will sustain the examiner's
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over the collective teachings of Singer and Gillard. Regarding
claims 3, 10 and 12, we again refer to appellant's grouping of
claims found on page 10 of the brief, and conclude that those
claims will fall with independent claim 1, from which they
depend.
The examiner has next rejected claims 17 and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by or, in the alternative,
1616
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007