Appeal No.2001-1715
Application No. 08/730,892
DISCUSSION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and applied prior art, including
all of the arguments advanced by both the Examiner in the Answer and Appellants in the
Brief and Reply Brief, in support of their respective positions. This review leads us to
conclude that the Examiner’s § 103 rejection is not well founded. See In re Oetiker, 977
F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468,
1471-1472, 223 USPQ 785, 787-788 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Von der Goltz describes a flow device for use in a hemorrhaging time measuring
apparatus. The device is an apparatus that comprises a housing through which the blood to
be tested flows under a suction effect. In a preferred embodiment, at least one aperture is
provided in a partitioning or separating wall which defines a cavity into which the suction
tube projects. The porous member may be permeated and/or coated with collagen. Von der
Goltz also discloses that the porous member can be coated with agents that induce
thrombocyte aggregation, including adenosine diphosphate (ADP), or a thrombocyte-
activating agent phospholipid such as PAF. Von der Goltz does not specify whether the
separating wall is coated prior to use or whether the separating wall is embedded with the
chemical reagent.
The Examiner relies on Przybylowicz to provide motivation to embed the separating
wall with chemical reagents. Specifically, the Examiner relies on Przybylowicz for teaching
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007