Appeal No. 2005-1216
Application No. 10/117,453
teachings in col. 9, lines 22-42, of Hillenkamp I anticipate a sample holder comprising a
multiplicity of islands, which are non-removably connected to one another through a
substrate wherein said islands comprise a sample support surface and [said islands] are
separated by a recessed area or sump in a manner which inhibits transport of a sample
between adjacent support surfaces as set forth in claim 30.
The appellants argue that column 9 (lines 24-31), of Hillenkamp I which states:
Thus for example the substrate 2 [sic] may consist of a plate having a plurality of
thin needle-like projections or deep wells at its instrument-facing surface onto
which sample 2 is coated. In this case, the illumination 1 provided by the laser
causes desorption from the sides of the pins, or from the walls of the wells, into a
space confined by the surrounding walls or adjacent pins.
does not anticipate the claimed invention. Reply Brief, p. 4. The appellants contend
that the present invention requires “a sump that separates adjacent sample support
surfaces to inhibit transport” and a sample support surface “designed to support a
sample and to be individually addressable, e.g. by a laser beam.” Id. The appellant
argues that the plume generated by the desorption of the sample from the sides of the
pins “promotes mixing of sample from adjacent pins.” Id. We find these arguments
unpersuasive.
First, we point out that representative claim 30 defines a sump as a “recessed
area between adjacent sample support surfaces.” We find that a sample plate having a
plurality of needle-like projections or pins manifestly has a recessed area between the
sample support surfaces. Thus, this claim limitation is described by the Hillenkamp
patents.
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007