Ex parte SANADI - Page 2




         Appeal No. 1997-3015                                                     
         Application No. 08/441,794                                               


                                   BACKGROUND                                     
              The appellant's invention relates to an apparatus for               
         prevention of cross contamination of multi-well test plates              
         (specification, p. 1).  A copy of the claims under appeal is             
         set forth in the appendix to the appellant's brief.1                     
              The prior art references of record relied upon by the               
         examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:                           
         Fernwood et al. (Fernwood)  5,141,719       August 25, 1992              
         Wong                       5,227,139      July 13, 1993                
         Vogler et al. (Vogler '535)  5,326,535      July 5, 1994                 
         Vogler et al. (Vogler '611)  5,344,611      September 6, 1994            
              Claims 30-33, 36 and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.              
         § 102(b) as being anticipated by Fernwood.2                              
              Claim 38 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being             
         unpatentable over Fernwood in view of Vogler '535, Vogler '611           
         and Wong.                                                                
              Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced           
         by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted              
         rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper            
         No. 14, mailed March 7, 1997) for the examiner's complete                
                                                                                 
         1 In claim 36 in the appendix "plurality" is incorrectly spelled "plurallity".
         2 The examiner's reference to claims 30-37 (answer, page 3) appears to be an
         inadvertent error in view of the cancellation of claims 34 and 35 in the 
                                        2                                         





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007