Appeal No. 93-3623 Page 20
Application 07/629,690
B. Analogousness
7. To be relevant in an obviousness rejection, a reference
must either be in the field of the applicant's endeavor or, if
not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with
which the applicant was concerned. In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436,
442, 230 USPQ 313, 315 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Thus, it is not
sufficient for Appellant to observe that a reference is not
directed to peptide sequencing (even where the observation is
true), when all of the references are directed to microvolume
analysis of biochemicals in a reactor, generally involving
peptides and substrates. Prior art is relevant for all it fairly
teaches even if directed to a somewhat different problem. In re
Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 614, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1785 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
C. Claim interpretation
8. We must interpret claims as broadly as their terms
reasonably allow in light of the specification. In re Zletz,
893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
9. Claim 1 does not exclude the additional use of
adhesives, plugs, or seals to secure the interference fit.
10. Claim 1 does not require the reactor to be free of
unswept volumes. Both the specification (Paper 1 at 6) and
dependent claim 8 associate this advantage with a specific
arrangement. Cf. 35 U.S.C. § 112[4] (requiring dependent claims
to specify a further limitation of the claimed subject matter).
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007