Appeal No. 2006-2654
Application No. 10/100,276
Having interpreted claim 1, we turn to the issue of whether the cited
prior art patents anticipate it. The Examiner contends that the claimed
apparatus is anticipated by a multi-channel laminar flow device which is
described in each of Yager, Weigl, and Malmqvist. The basis of the
rejection is the same for all three patents. We choose Yager as
representative. According to Yager,
[t]he extraction system of this invention in simplest concept is
illustrated by a diffusion extraction device comprising
microchannels in the shape of an “H”. A mixture of particles
suspended in a sample stream enters the extraction
channel . . . from one of the arms, e.g., the top left, and an
extraction stream (a dilution stream) enters from the bottom
left. . . . While the streams are in adjacent laminar flow in the
extraction channel, particles having a greater diffusion
coefficient (smaller particles such as albumin, sugars and small
ions) have time to diffuse into the extraction stream, while the
larger particles (e.g., blood cells) remain in the sample stream.
Col. 4, ll. 47-63.
Yager states that “fluid barrier” is formed in the extraction channel by
the two streams in laminar flow. Col. 14, ll. 16-36. The Examiner asserts
that the “fluid barrier” is a “wall defining a dam” as required by claim 1.
Answer 8. We do not agree. As we have interpreted it, a “wall defining a
dam” is an integral and structural feature of the claimed apparatus. The
“fluid barrier” described in Yager is not a structural feature of the apparatus,
but is formed by two fluids streams in laminar flow with each other in the
same channel when the apparatus is in use.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013