Appeal No. 2001-0558
Application No. 08/966,708
assembly but more than the width of the holes to
enable the seal to be maintained but save on the
expense of the tape [answer, pages 3 and 4].
Rejections based on 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) must rest on a
factual basis. In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ
173, 177-78 (CCPA 1967). In making such a rejection, the
examiner has the initial duty of supplying the requisite
factual basis and may not, because of doubts that the
invention is patentable, resort to speculation, unfounded
assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies
in the factual basis. Id.
To the extent that Witty’s reagent package devices 10
and/or reagent standards device 50 correspond to the multicell
cuvettes of the admitted prior art, each has its own separate
and distinct bonding strip or removable cover 21, 60. There
is simply nothing in Witty’s disclosure of this structure
which would have suggested providing the admitted prior art
multicell cuvettes with a bonding strip serving to join the
row of multicell cuvettes into a contiguous handling package
as recited in claim 32, let alone with such a bonding strip
having a width smaller
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007