Appeal No. 2001-0558
Application No. 08/966,708
THE PRIOR ART
The prior art items relied on by the examiner as evidence
of
obviousness are:
Shelton et al. (Shelton) 3,966,042 Jun.
29, 1976
Witty et al. (Witty) 4,675,299 Jun. 23,
1987
Winski 5,269,645 Dec. 14,
1993
The multicell cuvette assembly discussed on page 1, lines 12
through 32, of the appellants’ specification (the admitted
prior art)
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 3 through 8, 22 through 25 and 32 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
admitted prior art in view of Witty.
Claims 9, 10 and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over the admitted prior art in
view of Witty, Winski and Shelton.
Attention is directed to the appellants’ main and reply
briefs (Paper Nos. 21 and 25) and to the examiner’s answer
and 23 are duplicates, and the term “the other end” in claim
10 lacks a proper antecedent basis. These matters are
deserving of correction upon return of the application to the
technology center.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007