Appeal No. 2006-1460
Application No. 10/033,315
We hereby sustain, therefore, the Section 103 rejection of
claims 15-19 and 27-35 as being unpatentable over Wilding.
THE SECTION 103 REJECTION BASED ON HOLL, WILDING OR DUBROW
The appellants argue that the applied references contain no
teaching or suggestion of constructing the assemblies thereof
from the specific polymer material required by the rejected
claims, namely, PEEK. However, each of these references either2
expressly teaches or would have suggested manufacturing the
assemblies thereof from appropriate polymer materials of
construction (e.g., see lines 25-40 in column 8 of Wilding).
Furthermore, such reference disclosures evince that an
artisan would have found it obvious to select a specific polymer
material known in the prior art and suitable for construction of
fluidic assemblies of the type under consideration. Under these
circumstances, we agree with the examiner that it would have been
obvious for the artisan to select PEEK specifically as a suitable
prior art polymer material of construction for the assemblies of
the applied references.
2That is, polyetheretherketone; see the paragraph bridging
pages 9-10 of the appellants’ specification.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007