Ex Parte Strand et al - Page 2



          Appeal No. 2006-1460                                                        
          Application No. 10/033,315                                                  

          a method of producing a multi-layer laminated substrate.  This              
          appealed subject matter is adequately represented by independent            
          claim 1 which reads as follows:                                             
               1.   A microfluidic substrate assembly comprising:                     
               a multi-layer laminated substrate defining at least one                
               fluid inlet port and at least one microscale fluid flow                
               channel within the multi-layer substrate in fluid                      
               communication with the inlet port for transport of fluid;              
               and                                                                    
               at least one operative component mounted aboard the multi-             
               layer laminated substrate in communication with the                    
               microscale fluid flow channel.                                         
               The references set forth below are relied upon by the                  
          examiner as evidence of unpatentability:                                    
          Wilding et al. (Wilding)         5,928,880          Jul. 27, 1999           
          Dubrow et al. (Dubrow)           6,475,364          Nov.  5, 2002           
          Mastrangelo et al. (Mastrangelo) 6,494,433          Dec. 17, 2002           
          Holl                           WO 99/60397          Nov. 25, 1999           
          (published World Intell. Prop. Org. Patent Application)                     
               Claims 1-6, 8-19 and 27-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.                
          § 102(b) as being anticipated by Holl.                                      
               Claims 1-6 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as           
          being anticipated by Dubrow.                                                
               Claims 1-6 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as           
          being anticipated by Wilding.                                               



                                          2                                           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007