Appeal No. 96-1809
Application 08/094,724
to thereby interpret limitations explicitly recited in claim).
According to appellant’s specification (p.9, lines 9-24):
Referring to FIG. 1, a transfer element 10 is
shown having a main body 2 comprising an upper
surface 4 and a preferably circular lower surface 6.
The shape of lower surface 6 may be varied, but
preferably should be congruent with the shape of the
test surface area to be contacted, whatever that may
be.
Referring to FIG. 2(a), lower surface 6 is
defined, in part, by a liquid-supporting portion 7
defined by a series of substantially parallel, V-
shaped grooves 8, disposed over the majority of the
area of surface 6. The shapes and depths of grooves
8, however, may be varied to be rectangular, convex,
concave, U-shaped, etc. Alternate configurations
can also be provided for defining liquid supporting
portion 7; for example, a diamond-like pattern such
as illustrated in FIG. 2(b).
See also Specification, p.10, lines 7-9 (“it is preferred that
lower surface 6 be made from a compliant and liquid-
impermeable material”).
Although we agree with the examiner that the loop or
transfer element in Harrison is constructed from a material
having an impermeable surface (Answer, p.3), we agree with
appellant that the surface of the transfer element as a whole
is not impermeable. See Brief, p.3 (“liquid does ‘pass
through’ the loop 34").
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007