Appeal No. 1997-3503
Application No. 08/172,866
The examiner argues (Answer, page 11) that Asakura, and ‘622 “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.14” To make up for this
deficiency the examiner applies Forrest. According to the examiner (Answer,
page 11), “Forrest specifies that single magnets could be employed beneath
each reaction vessel….” The examiner further argues (Answer, page 11) 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.
Appellants do not separately argue this rejection. It appears that
appellants’ rely on their previous arguments regarding the teachings of the prior
art. Therefore, for the reasons discussed supra we find no error in the
examiner’s rejection. Accordingly, we affirm the examiner’s rejection of claims
14 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.
17
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007