Appeal No. 1997-3503
Application No. 08/172,866
Claims 43, 44, 52 and 53:
The examiner argues (Answer, page 9) that ‘061, ‘622, Sakuma, and
Rosenfield “differ from the instant invention in that they do not specify that the
magnet is a permanent magnet in the shape of a flat disk or a needle.”12 To
make up for this deficiency the examiner applies Forrest. According to the
examiner (Answer, page 9), “Forrest specifies that single magnets could be
employed beneath each reaction vessel….” The examiner further argues
(Answer, page 9) that:
It would have been further obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art
to utilize a magnet in the shape of a needle placed adjacent to the
center of the vessel, since such a magnet and placement would
have concentrated the magnetic particles in as small an area as
possible in the most recessed portion of the vessel, thereby
enhancing the distinction between a positive and negative
distribution pattern and increasing sensitivity.
12 We note that the examiner included the “Forrest” reference in this statement.
However, considering that the statement of the rejection is ‘061, ‘622, Sakuma
and Rosenfield further in view of Forrest we believe the examiner’s inclusion of
“Forrest” in this statement is a typographical error. This typographical error is
corrected herein above.
13
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007