Appeal 2007-3583
Application 10/238,147
known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
than yield predictable results.
The analysis supporting obviousness should be made explicit and should
“identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the
relevant field [of art] to combine the elements” in the manner claimed. KSR,
127 S. Ct. at 1739, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Applying the preceding legal principles to the factual findings from
the record in this appeal, we determine that the Examiner has properly
established a prima facie case of obviousness in view of the reference
evidence, which prima facie case has not been adequately rebutted by
Appellant’s arguments. As shown by factual finding (1) listed above, and
not contested by Appellant, we determine that Kidd discloses the basic
structure of an individual container or well with a cap, filter element, and
cover. We determine that claim 20 on appeal is merely directed to a
plurality of these wells, with a corresponding sheet of caps to align with
each individual well. We determine that multi-well plate assemblies were
well known in this art, as shown by factual finding (2) listed above. We also
determine that the alternative use of a single well and cap, a strip of wells
and caps, or a multi-well plate assembly would have been suggested to one
of ordinary skill in this art, as shown by factual finding (4) listed above.
Furthermore, we determine that multi-well assemblies of the individual well
and cap disclosed by Kidd would have been suggested to the artisan by the
teachings of Gamble concerning the advantages of low cost, high efficiency,
and high throughput multi-well assemblies (see factual finding (3) listed
above).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013