Appeal 2007-1163
Application 10/172,470
controlling the device according to detected fluid levels as taught by Kedar”
(id.).
Appellants argue that Brennan does not teach all of the elements of
claim 23 and Kedar does not cure Brennan’s deficiencies (Br. 7-8).
We are not persuaded by this argument, for the reasons discussed
above. We conclude that the Examiner has set forth a prima facie case that
claim 24 would have been obvious over Brennan in view of Kedar, which
Appellants have not rebutted. We therefore affirm the rejection of claim 24
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim 28 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Brennan in view of Hansen. The Examiner relies on Brennan for teaching
the features of claim 26 (Answer 7). The Examiner relies on Hansen for
teaching the use of robotic arms “for computer-controlled movement of
supports” (id.). The Examiner argues that it would have been obvious “to
apply the robotic arm mechanism of Hansen et al to the manifold device of
Brennan for the expected benefit of computer-controlled movement of
supports as desired in the manifold art as taught by Hansen” (id.).
Appellants argue:
Hansen does not cure the deficiencies of Brennan because
Hansen does not teach or suggest elements of Claim 26 not
taught by Brennan. For example, Hansen does not disclose or
suggest a mechanism for moving a support to and from the
station for monomer addition and a flow cell and from one flow
cell to another flow cell.
(Br. 8.)
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not set forth a prima
facie case of obviousness. Hansen describes using a computer-controlled
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013