Appeal No. 2006-0484 Page 9
Application No. 09/657,729
The examiner also rejected claims 1, 2, 4, 6-9, 13, 47, and 49 as anticipated by
Cozzette.3 Since we have already found all of these claims anticipated by Weetall,
however, we need not decide whether they are also anticipated by Cozzette. Likewise,
the examiner rejected claim 51 as anticipated by Kotzan,4 but since we have found that
Higgins anticipates claim 51, we need not reach the rejection based on Kotzan.
3. Obviousness
The examiner rejected claims 1-4, 6-13, 47, 49, and 50 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious in view of Weetall and Kotzan. We have already found that claims 1-4, 6-10,
12, 13, 47, 49, and 50 are anticipated by Weetall. We therefore affirm the rejection of
these claims under § 103, since “anticipation is the epitome of obviousness.” Connell v.
Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548, 220 USPQ 193, 199 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
The only claim that the examiner rejected under § 103 but not § 102 is claim 11.
Claim 11 depends on each of claims 1 and 7-10 is directed to the method of claim 1
where, among other things, the electrochemical control has at least two electrodes
contained on a plate with cone-shaped protrusions, and the protrusions of the plate fit
into the wells of a microplate.
The examiner relied on Weetall for teaching the protrusions required by claim 11.
See the Examiner’s Answer, pages 10-11: “Weetall discloses a sensor apparatus for
measuring the redox reaction occurring on the surface of the electrode array. . . . Figure
2 discloses that the electrodes are contained on a plate with protrusions that fit[ ] into
the well, and the protrusions are truncated cones (refers to instant claims 10, and 12).
3 Cozzette et al., U.S. Patent 5,200,051, issued April 6, 1993.
4 Kotzan et al., U.S. Patent 5,538,687, issued July 23, 1996.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007