Appeal No. 2001-0103
Application 08/763,465
chambers. Thus, the statement in claim 27 of “said array” does technically not enjoy
antecedent support in claim 26. To this extent, we agree that claims 27-29 and 32 are
indefinite. We therefore affirm this rejection.
The Rejection of Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 11, 17, 22, 30, and 33-37 Under 35 U.S.C. §102(b)
as Anticipated by Pace
The Examiner states that Pace teaches a “sleeve reaction chamber” 30, 38
having slots 10, 20 for performing reactions. The slots 10, 20 are said to receive fluid
directly from a buffer reservoir 14 and a sample chamber 18. (Examiner’s Answer, page
4, lines 12-15).
The Appellant in the appeal brief “calls upon” the Examiner to explain how Pace
teaches the claimed “sleeve reaction chamber” which includes a slot therein for
insertion of reaction fluid. (Appeal Brief, page 13, lines 1-3).
Our review of the Pace reference indicates that, in accord with the Examiner’s
position, the trapezoidal channels 10, 20 in base 30 are closed in with the glass plate 38
and as such may be considered a sleeve chamber. However, we part company with the
Examiner’s interpretation which holds that channels 10, 20 are simultaneously “slots”
for the insertion of reaction fluid. Channel 10 is the separation conduit (column 6, lines
15-16), while channel 20 is the injection conduit (column 6, line 18). Neither provides
for insertion of a reaction fluid through a slot in the manner stated by the Examiner (and
as claimed by the Appellant).
In order for a reference to be anticipatory, it must disclose, either explicitly or
implicitly, every element of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007