Interference No. 104,745
c) a sample placed on said sample support, and comprising an analyte
embedded in an ionization-assisting matrix chosen such that said matrix facilitates
ionization of said analyte to form analyte ions upon light-induced release of said
analyte from said sample;
c) [sic] a laser for illuminating said sample, to induce said release of said
analyte from said sample, and to induce ionization of said analyte to form said
analyte ions; and
d) [sic] an interface connecting said ionization chamber and said
spectrometer for capturing said analyte ions released from said sample and for
transporting said analyte ions to said spectrometer,
or
[Bai's claim 41] An atmospheric-pressure ionization apparatus for connection to
a spectrometer, comprising:
a) a surface for depositing a sample;
b) a sample placed on said surface, and comprising an analyte and matrix
mixture, wherein said matrix is capable, upon absorption of laser light, of
transferring charge to the analyte to form analyte ions;
c) a laser to induce desorption and ionization of said analyte to form said
analyte ions; and
d) a passageway for capturing said analyte ions released from said
analyte/matrix mixture and for transporting said analyte ions to said spectrometer.
The scope and meaning of the Bai count alternative
The parties disagree regarding the scope and meaning of two terms used in the Bai count
alternative: (a) "atmospheric-pressure," which appears only in the preamble; and
(b) "spectrometer," which appears in the preamble and the body. Laiko argues that construing
these terms in light of Bai's disclosure reveals that the term "atmospheric-pressure" implies the
presence of an ionization chamber and that the term "spectrometer" is limited to a mass
spectrometer which produces a mass spectrum. Bai argues that the count language is
unambiguous and therefore must be construed without consulting Bai's disclosure, citing
DeGeorge v. Bernier, 768 F.2d 1318, 1321-22, 226 USPQ 758, 761 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Fontijn v.
Okamoto, 518 F.2d 610, 617, 186 USPQ 97, 102-03 (CCPA 1975); and Lamont v. Berguer,
- 9 -
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007