Appeal No. 1997-3328
Application No. 08/226,605
drops" and "it is held that 'the motivation to make a specific
structure is always related to the properties or uses one
skilled in the art would expect a structure to have'" (answer,
page 5).
Notwithstanding the examiner's statements to the contrary
we find that the specific structural features of claim 20 are
not obvious from Verheggen and/or Harrison. Appellants have
recognized specific benefits flowing from manipulation of
certain structural features (the supply and drain channel
dimensions with respect to the electrolyte channel dimensions,
at their intersection to form a geometrically defined sample
volume) and neither the structure nor the benefits are
described in the prior art. We do agree that some
modification of the channel
structures of Verheggen and Harrison would be obvious, but not
to the extent of the features of claim 20.
Accordingly, the decision of the examiner to reject claim
20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed. As noted above, we have
grouped claims 13-18 and 20 as standing or falling together.
Thereby, in accordance with 37 CFR ' 1.192(c)(7), claims 13-18
16
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007