Appeal No. 1997-3328
Application No. 08/226,605
of the functional aspect of a structural limitation in claim
20. And we are not imputing the specific structural
limitations from the specification into the claim to determine
the meaning of the functional phrase recited in the claim. We
are simply noting that the functional clause is required to be
construed as part of the claimed limitations.
We conclude that claim 20 recites a structural feature
(means for electrokinetically injecting ...) which is not
shown by either Verheggen or Harrison, or any combination
thereof.
Appellants have pointed to the portions of those disclosures
which show a greater resistance to flow (the opposite of the
"means for" clause of claim 20) to which the examiner responds
with a general dismissal and without providing any showing of
this feature in the prior art.
It is noted that the examiner has pointed out that "with
respect to the diameters of the sample, drain, and electrolyte
channels, it is clear that the prior art, especially Harrison,
deals with the idea of channel geometry which in Harrison's
case is manipulated to control where the applied potential
15
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007