Appeal No. 2001-0062
Application 08/774,170
contain the biological material under analysis or test” (Column 15, lines 39-41). Figure
9 itself does not appear to show anything other than a splash-guard type of
arrangement. See especially the oval shaped portions in the upper portion of Figure 9,
which support the wall of the sample containment vessel above the reactive chip.
Further, the “vessel” is open. This disclosure would not have suggested the invention
as claimed to one of ordinary skill in the art. We do not see the sleeve reaction
chamber as required by Claim 1, nor the cell body having a cavity adjacent one of the
electrodes in claim 17, the only independent claims in this application.
Where the Examiner fails to establish a prima facie case, the rejection is
improper and will be overturned. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596,
1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
The rejection of Claims 1-5, 11, 14-18, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being
unpatentable over Heller in view of Hall or Kamin is reversed.
The Rejection of Claims 1-5, 14-18, and 24 Under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Pace in view of
Hall or Keller
The Examiner states that Pace teaches a sleeve reaction chamber having slots
for communicating with entry holes for performing fluorescence reactions. The slots are
said to receive fluid directly from a buffer reservoir and sample chamber. (Examiner’s
Answer, page 6, lines 11-14, referencing Pace Figures 1-3, reference numerals 10, 20,
30 and 38).
The Appellants state that the sleeve reaction chamber chamber including a slot
therein for insertion of reaction fluid is found nowhere in Pace, and is clearly not taught
by channel 32 in Figure 3.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007