Ex Parte Yang et al - Page 7

                 Appeal No. 2006-2654                                                                                                   
                 Application No. 10/100,276                                                                                             

                                                                                                          Comment [U1]: Question with   
                        Additionally, Yager does not describe a first and second channels                 channel s                     
                 formed by the “surface” of the apparatus as required by the properly                                                   
                 interpreted claim 1.   Yager describes only a single integral channel which it                                         
                 refers to as the “extraction channel.”                                                                                 
                        A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in                                           
                 the claim is found in a single prior art reference.  See Verdegaal Bros. v.                                            
                 Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed.                                              
                 Cir. 1987).  Yager does not describe an apparatus comprising a “wall                                                   
                 defining a dam” nor two channels “separated over said at least one part of                                             
                 their length” by the dam as required by claim 1.  Because these elements are                                           
                 missing from Yager, it cannot anticipate claim 1.                                                                      
                        Weigl and Malmqvist are relied on by the Examiner for the same                                                  
                 teaching found in Yager of a microfluidic device comprising, when fluid                                                
                 streams are present, a fluid barrier formed by two parallel flowing fluid                                              
                 streams.  Answer 5, 6.  These patents are deficient for the same reasons                                               
                 discussed for Yager.                                                                                                   
                        With at least two structural limitations absent from the cited prior art                                        
                 microfluidic devices, we cannot sustain any of the Examiner’s rejections                                               
                 under § 102(b).  The rejections of claims 1-8 are reversed.                                                            










                                                         7                                                                              









Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013