Appeal No. 2000-0122
Application No. 08/309,925
Cody (id.). Claims 50 and 58 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Rosenthal taken with Khalil (id.).
We affirm the rejections on appeal essentially for the reasons
stated in the Answer and those set forth below, with the exception
that we reverse the rejection of claims 50 and 58 for the reasons
which follow.
OPINION
The examiner finds that Rosenthal teaches a chemical reaction
apparatus having a shaped body (4) having an array of reaction
wells, a porous reaction support (4.6) in said reaction wells, and
a collection plate (1.1) having a plurality of collection wells
(1.2)(Final Rejection, Paper No. 11, page 3). From these findings,
the examiner states that Rosenthal discloses “all the structural
limitations of the instant claims.” Id. We agree.
The chemical reaction assembly recited in claim 43 on appeal
requires a reaction support having a first and second surface and a
collection plate adjacent to the second surface having a plurality
of wells. As found by the examiner supra, Rosenthal discloses a
collection plate (base block 1.1) having a plurality of collection
wells (reaction vessels 1.2) that is adjacent to the second surface
of a reaction support (carrier matrix 4.6). See Figure 1b; Figure
2b; col. 3, l. 59-col. 4, l. 58; and Example 18 at cols. 10-11.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007