Appeal No. 1998-2581
Application No. 08/472,965
of the pipette 34 and the aperture 32 appear to be similar in
the Figures does not meet the examiner’s burden of establishing
the inherency of a sealing relationship in the device of
Zipilivan.
We further determine that the examiner has no basis for the
finding that Figure 1 of Zipilivan shows the pipette as being
fixed to the concentration chamber (Answer, page 4; see the
Supplemental Reply Brief, page 2). Figure 1 of Zipilivan
clearly shows the pipette 34 above the apertures 32 in the top
of the concentration chamber . Accordingly, the examiner has
not established that Zipilivan shows the limitation of claim 2
on appeal that the detachable auxiliary upper reservoir is fixed
to the aperture.
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the examiner
has not met the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case
of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Accordingly, the
rejection of claims 1, 2, 3, 6, and 14 under section 102(b) over
Zipilivan is reversed.
The examiner has rejected claims 3, 5, 8, 11, 13
and 16 under section 103 (Supplemental Answer, page 3).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007