Appeal No. 1997-3328
Application No. 08/226,605
210, 212, 169 USPQ 226, 228,(CCPA, 1971), there is nothing
wrong with using functional language to describe something in
terms of what it does rather than what it is. Appellants have
chosen to express the injection portion of the claimed
electrophoresis device as a "means for electrokinetically
injecting a sample
which reflects the original sample composition into said
sample
volume characterized in that said supply channel and said
drain channel each have a resistance to flow with respect to
said electrolyte buffer which is about 5% lower than the
respective resistance to flow of said electrolyte channel."
We interpret this, in light of the disclosed size limitations
of the supply and drain channels vis a vis the electrolyte
channel, to be a structural limitation. Further, we find such
limitation is not found in either of the applied teachings of
Verheggen or Harrison. Indeed, both Verheggen or Harrison
teach the opposite limitation as noted in the above referenced
appellants' argument (brief, pages 3-4).
What we are dealing with in this case is the construction
14
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007