Appeal 2007-0511
Application 10/699,508
1 samples, material properties of samples, or the like on a computer sub-
2 system 23. Kolosov, para. [0068].
3 The Examiner concludes that the invention of claim 11 would have
4 been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the combined
5 teachings of Kolosov, Smrcka, and O’Rear or Gatto. Final Office Action
6 mailed November 4, 2005 at 11; Answer at 9-10.
7 The Appellants do not challenge the Examiner’s findings or the
8 Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness as to claim 11 in the Appeal Brief.
9 Rather, the Appellants argue that Smrcka does not cure the deficiencies of
10 Kolosov, O’Rear, and Gatto as to claim 1. Appeal Brief at 18-19.
11 For the reasons set forth above, the teachings of Kolosov and O’Rear
12 or Gatto render obvious the subject matter of claim 1. Therefore, there are
13 no deficiencies that Smrcka must cure.
14 5. Claims 22 and 23
15 Claim 22 depends from claim 15 and recites that each test receptacle
16 has a bar code affixed to an outer surface thereof.
17 The Examiner finds that the containers holding lubricant samples in
18 Kolosov do not have a bar code attached thereto. The Examiner finds that
19 Garr teaches that it is common in a combinatorial library to identify
20 individual containers by a unique code, such as a bar code, which is optically
21 readable. The Examiner finds that the code can be stored in the memory of a
22 digital signal processor on a database. Final Office Action mailed
23 November 4, 2005 at 12; Answer at 10.
24 The Examiner concludes that the invention of claim 22 would have
25 been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the combined
23
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013