Appeal No. 2001-0062
Application 08/774,170
The Appellants state that the Examiner has failed to point out where in Heller is
found a sleeve reaction chamber including a slot, and states that it is clear that the
channel 136 of Fig. 9 of Heller, et al. does not teach this feature. (Appeal Brief, page
11, lines 22-24). The Examiner states in reply that Heller teaches an enveloping
structure as shown in Figure 9 “having a fluid containment system (136) portion,
including viewing window 138 and inlet port 137, disposed over a reactive chip”
(Examiner’s Answer, page 8, lines 7-9).
Federal Circuit precedent provides us with guidance with respect to the
construction of claims undergoing examination. See Burlington Industries v. Quigg, 822
F.2d 1581, 1583, 3 USPQ2d 1436, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (claims undergoing
examination are given their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the
specification); In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404 05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA
1969) (same).
Claim 1 requires a sleeve reaction chamber having a slot for insertion of reaction
fluid, and a detector which is an electrochemiluminescence cell. This claim on its face
encompasses a reaction chamber having electrochemiluminescence as a detection
means, so long as a slot is included for inserting reaction fluid. The only other
independent claim, Claim 16, requires a micromachined cell body having spaced
electrodes and a cavity adjacent one of the electrodes and at least one opening therein
in communication with said cavity.
We find that the art as applied by the Examiner is insufficient to support the prima
facie case of obviousness. The so-called “fluid containment system” of Figure 9, upon
closer inspection of the specification of Heller, is a “sample containment vessel 136 to
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007