Appeal No. 2001-0103
Application 08/763,465
Claims 1-14, 17-18, 22-23, and 25-38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Heller.
Claims 15-16 and 19-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Heller in view of Northrup I.
Claims 1-38 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-
type double patenting over claims 1-22 of Northrup II.
We affirm the rejection of Claims 27-29 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. §112, second
paragraph, and the rejection of claims 1-38 under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting. We reverse the rejection of claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 11,
17, 22, 30, and 33-37 under 35 U.S.C. §102(b), the rejection of claims 1-14, 17-18, 22-
23 and 25-38 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a), and the rejection of claims 15-16 and 19-20
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a).
DISCUSSION
The present invention relates to microfabricated instruments for performing
microscale chemical reactions. More specifically, the claims are directed to sleeve
devices as reaction chambers which can be utilized in arrays for a high throughput
microreaction unit. The reaction sleeve also allows for introduction of a secondary tube
or insert that contains the reaction mixture. (Appeal Brief, page 2, lines 8-18).
The Rejection of Claims 27-29 and 32 Under 35 U.S.C. §112, Second Paragraph
The Examiner states in the final rejection that claims 27-29 and 32 are unclear in
that the array has not been positively recited. The Examiner asserts that it is unclear
how the array limitation limits a microfabricated chemical reactor as the array has not
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007