Appeal No. 2003-1103 Page 6
Application No. 09/212,029
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, every limitation of a claim must identically
appear in a single prior art reference for it to anticipate the claim.” Gechter v.
Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1457, 43 USPQ2d 1030, 1032 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We
conclude that appellants’ interpretation of the disputed claim limitation is more
reasonable and therefore reverse the examiner’s rejection. We agree with
appellants’ argument that the term “thermal path length” as used in Schnipelsky
refers to the thickness of the wall of the reaction chamber and not the internal
dimensions of such chamber or the flow channel. We reach this conclusion
based on three disclosures in the reference.
First, as noted by appellants, Schnipelsky refers to the thermal path length
as a characteristic of the material of construction used for the thermal transfer
wall that separates the reaction compartment from the heat source. See column
8, lines 26-29: “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.” (Emphasis added).
Second, Schnipelsky discusses the layers that may make up the wall of
the reaction chamber (compartment 26). It states:
At least for compartment 26, sheet 14 [,which represents one of the
walls,] can comprise a laminate of an aluminum foil 64 on the
outside, FIG. 5, and a polymer layer 66 on the inside, preferably a
layer of polyester, like sheet 12. The aluminum foil preferably has a
thickness of between about 0.0013 cm and about 0.026 cm, and
most preferably about 0.005 cm. Layer 66 has a thickness of
between about 0.0013 and about 0.03, and most preferably about
0.005 cm. Even with layer 66 present, the thermal path length of
compartment 26 is no more than about 0.3 mm.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007