Appeal No. 2004-2052
Application 09/509,147
In light of the foregoing, we will not sustain the
examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, and claims 3 through
5 and 8 which depend therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Jones.
We next look to the examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3
through 5, 7 through 9 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Landsberger in view of Jones. Independent
claims 1 and 11 on appeal both require an adapter block having a
recess in the base thereof for receiving an upper portion of a
laboratory magnetic stirrer and fixing means for holding a
plurality of reaction vessels with the center of each reaction
vessel distributed around the recess in the adapter block
“outside the periphery of the recess.” Contrary to the
examiner’s position as set forth on page 8 of the answer, we must
agree with appellants (brief, page 9) that it would not have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the
magnetic stirrer of Landsberger such that the plurality of
reaction vessels (12) therein would be located outside the
periphery of the recess used for seating the adapter/support
block (10) on the laboratory magnetic stirrer (14). In that
regard, it is apparent to us that the reaction vessels (12) and
14
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007