Appeal No. 2003-1103 Page 5
Application No. 09/212,029
“Schnipelsky et al. provides no disclosure which satisfies the claim recitation
‘said flow channel and said reaction chamber having at least one cross-sectional
dimension of width or depth which is between about 0.1 to 500 µm.’” Appeal
Brief, page 11. Appellants contend that Schnipelsky is silent regarding these
dimensions. Id. Appellants argue that the dimensions, listed in column 11, lines
20-30 of Schnipelsky and noted by the examiner in the final rejection on page 4,
are the dimensions of the “materials of construction,” and are “not the dimensions
of the flow channel and reaction chamber required in appellants’ claims.” Appeal
Brief, page 12 (emphasis in original). The focal point of appellants’ argument is
that the examiner has “misinterpreted the meaning of ‘thermal path length’” as
used by Schnipelsky. Reply Brief, page 3. Appellants refer to column 8, lines
26-61, where thermal path length is first discussed:
Considering first the preferred thermal transfer mechanism, namely
the passive transfer wall of the compartment, the material of such
wall is selected to provide a predetermined thermal path length and
thermal resistance that will provide a high rate of thermal energy
transfer. Most preferably, such path length is no greater than about
0.3 mm . . . . These properties are readily achieved by constructing
the thermal transfer wall out of a plastic, or a laminate of plastic and
metal such as aluminum that is about 0.05 mm thick.
Reply Brief, page 4 (quoting Schnipelsky, column 8, lines 26-37) (emphasis
added in Reply Brief). Based on this disclosure, appellants contend that the term
“thermal path length” refers to the “material of construction used for the thermal
transfer wall . . . not . . . the internal dimensions of the reaction compartment, or a
flow channel or any other void space within the device.” Reply Brief, page 5.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007