Appeal No. 1997-0881
Application No. 08/367,508
does not specifically disclose a second punchout having a
second boundary, wherein the second boundary is entirely
outside of a first boundary of the first punchout so that said
second punchout has an inner portion removed therefrom, said
inner portion forming said first punchout.
The examiner cites Sadler as similarly teaching a blood testing method utilizing filter paper
that is spotted with blood, wherein the blood is allowed to dry, and more than one punchout
is made from the sample. Referring to Figure 1, the examiner urges that the disclosure of
Sadler could be interpreted to disclose a first punchout and that the second punchout
would be the remaining blood spot wherein the second boundaries is defined by the
periphery of the spot. (Answer, page 5).
In considering Yee and Sadler, the examiner has pointed to no factual evidence
which would reasonably suggest the manipulative steps of the claims on appeal which
would result in a second or subsequent punchout of the filter paper containing the blood
sample wherein the boundaries of the second punchout are entirely outside the boundaries
of the first punchout and wherein the second punchout has an inner portion removed
therefrom which is the first punchout. Both Yee and Sadler disclose the use of multiple
punchouts; but in each case the areas punched out do not overlap in the manner required
by the claims. Yee may reasonably be said to teach methods of punching out samples
which would maximize the area on the filter paper spotted with the blood (Yee, Figure 2).
In addition, the visual impact of Figure 1 of Sadler might suggest a physical similarity to the
resulting punchouts of the claims. However, the examiner's analysis of this figure (Answer,
page 5) does not provide for a second punchout as required by the claims. In those
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007