Interference No. 104,745
The spectrometer 100 has an interface 108 which defines an inlet orifice 110. A sample support
114 having a target surface 115 is enclosed in an atmospheric-pressure ionization chamber 102.
The sample on the target surface is irradiated through a window 107 by laser energy emitted by
laser 104 and focused by lens 106. A gas inlet 112 admits a bath gas or gas mixture 113 into the
ionization chamber through gas inlet 112.
The count
Count 1, the sole count, is the alternative union of two parts which are identical to
Laiko's patent claim 1 and Bai's application claim 41, respectively, and are referred to hereinafter
as the Laiko and Bai count alternatives:13
[Laiko's claim 1] An atmospheric-pressure ionization device for
connection to a spectrometer, comprising:
a) an atmospheric-pressure ionization chamber;
b) a sample support positioned within said ionization chamber;
13 As correctly noted by Laiko (LOppBr 7, ¶¶ 4-5), paragraph d of Bai's claim 41 is
inaccurately reproduced at page 9 of Bai's opening brief, erroneously reciting "releases" instead
of "released" and omitting "said analyte" from the phrase "a passageway . . . for transporting said
analyte ions to said spectrometer." Nothing in the record before us suggests these errors were
anything other than inadvertent. Furthermore, Bai's discussions of how the priority evidence
shows a conception and actual reductions to practice of the recited AP-MALDI explain that the
passageway transports analyte ions to the spectrometer. For example, Bai's opening brief states:
"Encouraged by these December 19, 1997 test results, Bai intended to proceed with its second
goal, i.e., to establish that its AP-MALDI device could generate analyte ions and transport those
ions to a mass spectrometer." BBr 72.
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007