Appeal No. 1996-3973
Application No. 08/048,657
suggests (a) the DMAB indicator or (b) the relative viscosities of the applied indicator and
reactive reagent solutions of independent claim 14. Therefore, we conclude that the examiner has
not established a prima facie case of obviousness of claims 14-19 over Przybylowicz in view of
Moyer.
NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION - 37 C.F.R.. § 1.196(b)
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Tietz, taken in light of
Przybylowicz. According to Tietz, the Kodak Ektachem analyzer of Eastman Kodak Company
uses a multilayered, 16-mm square test slide in which reagents dispersed in emulsions are
activated by diffusion of sample fluid into the layers. From 3-7 layers containing reagents are
used for each of the different tests available. Figure 1D-6 shows a schematic, exploded view of
the test slide comprising in descending order (1) an apertured upper slide mount, (2) a spreading
layer, (3) a reagent layer, (4) a semipermeable layer, (5) an indicator layer, (6) a support layer and
(7) an apertured lower slide mount. As to claim 13, the claimed reaction unit layer structure
including a spreadability enhancing material means and means for determining the presence of an
active species reads on the (2) spreading layer and (3)/(5) reagent and indicator layers of Tietz,
respectively, while the claimed backing with aperture reads on the (1) apertured upper slide
mount. Przybylowicz, assigned to the Eastman Kodak Company, is cited to establish the
definition of a spreading layer (see e.g., col. 3, lines 25-56).
Claims 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Evans and
Tietz. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Evans and Tietz, as
- 10 -
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007