Appeal No. 1997-3328
Application No. 08/226,605
variable obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of
electrophoresis" (answer, pages 7-8).
Appellants reply by referring to the device in Figure 1
in Harrison, describing the flow and concluding that in
Harrison "the sample volume is not defined-geometrically, but
determined by the strength and time of the applied injection
voltage... {t]hus the sample volume according to Harrison et
al's method is not defined by a section of the electrolyte
channel located between the supply port and the drain port; as
is require by present claim 19" (reply, pages 4-5).
The examiner responds by averring that appellants have
not responded to the argument that the amount of time the
voltage is applied is an "art recognized result-effective
variable" (supplemental answer, page 2) rather appellants
raise a new point, that claim 19 "requires that a voltage be
applied to the supply and drain channels of the claimed device
so as to allow for a geometrically-defined sample volume to be
introduced into the device" (supplemental answer, page 2).
Although the prior art appears to recognize the different
migration rates within a sample, and that the sample should be
clearly defined, we do not find any prior art recognition of
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007