Appeal No. 2005-1216
Application No. 10/117,453
Second, we find the appellants’ argument with respect to the mixing of the
samples in the ion plume which occurs during desorption to be directed to an intended
use of the claimed sample holder and, thus, it does not address a limitation present in
the claims.4 Claim 30 merely states that the recessed area or sump separates the
sample supports to inhibit transport of a sample between adjacent support surfaces. In
our view, the recessed area between the needle-like projections of the sample support
taught by Hillenkamp I, which are made by microlithography techniques similar to those
described in the appellants’ specification, inhibits the transport of the sample coated on
the sample support or “instrument facing [col. 9, line 27]” surface of one projection
(island) from the sample coated onto another.
Third, we do not find that claim 30 requires that the samples be individually
addressable. Thus, we do not find that this argument addresses a limitation present in
the claim. In any event, we point out that Hillenkamp I discloses that the pins or
projections support a sample to be analyzed by MALDI spectrometry. Attention is
directed, for example, to col. 9, lines 26-27, of Hillenkamp I which state that the pins or
projections support a sample which is to be coated onto “its instrument facing surface.”
Id., Iine 27. The samples are subjected to a laser (illumination 1) which “causes
4 We point out that whether the plumes generated by desorption of the sample
from the sides of the pins mixes with plumes of adjacent pins is a function of the MALDI
spectrometry chamber. That is, the design of the chamber and how it fits over each
projection prevents, or promotes, mixing of the plumes from adjacent samples.
16
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007